IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/330246.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade Standards for Welfare Maximization: A Case of Indo-US Trade in Wheat and Mango

Author

Listed:
  • Rastogi, Siddhartha

Abstract

As trade quotas have been eliminated under GATT and tariffs have been rationalized under WTO; the focal point of disputes and negotiations in international trade has shifted to non-tariff barriers, particularly Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) standards. SPS standards are commodity specific standards, adopted by WTO members to protect domestic flora and fauna and environment from the impact of invasive foreign organisms. However, in the absence of any past experience and concrete scientific or empirical evidence, standards are usually kept at prohibitively high levels, thereby inducing sub-optimal outcomes. Therefore, it is imperative to assess the impact of SPS standards on various dimensions and base the policy on expected net welfare gains to the nation as a whole. Most of the impact assessment approaches in the literature focus on trade gains or level of risk only; however, cost benefit analysis based studies are more flexible, comprehensive, and apt for policy formulation due to welfare oriented outlook. All the studies so far have considered the impact of SPS standards for a single commodity and on the importing nation only. Since unilateral decision on standards leaves out the possibility of choosing mutually beneficial level of standards, it is not in the best interest of the nation. The present research addresses this gap. A negotiation based SPS regime is considered, wherein a country may settle for lower benefits or a loss on trade of one commodity due to lower domestic SPS standards, yet a reciprocal change in SPS standards for another commodity by the trade partner may provide higher net gains. In such a case, unilateral decision making suggests for stringent SPS standards, leading to low or no trade whereas an interactive decision would facilitate trade and augment welfare. A game-theoretic framework for strategic negotiation on SPS standards between two countries and two commodities is proposed. The framework poses various alternate scenarios and the possible payoffs therein. Analysis of Nash equilibrium under different scenarios is presented with theoretical observations. A range of methodologies for quantifying payoffs is studied and their advantages and disadvantages are analyzed. To implement the proposed framework for empirical justification, the case of IndoUS trade in wheat and mango is chosen, as it would be more meaningful to compare the welfare implications to developing south with developed north. At present, India does not permit import of wheat from the US due to high weed infestation, whereas mango export from India to USA was banned between 1989 and 2006 due to high pesticide levels and incidence of pests. Since both the countries and commodities are economically significant, this dual trade embargo harms both the nations. With this context, a range of welfare gains to India and US under different SPS regimes is estimated. The policy choices act as strategies and include two ends of spectrum, complete ban and full liberalization. Intermediate strategy for India is to demand Methyl Bromide (MB) treatment of wheat and for US, to demand nuclear irradiation or hot water treatment (HWT) of mangoes. 2 For estimation, the welfare-representing payoffs are defined as potential gain or loss to the parties affected directly (consumers and producers) or indirectly (by spillover effects). Partial equilibrium framework with stylized microeconomic models for different components is used. Benchmark data of three years (2004-06) is employed in order to avoid the effect of abnormal observations. The principle of conservatism is followed by considering losses on a higher side and gains on a lower side. This ensures that even if there is some margin of error, the outcomes would not change drastically. The estimation process breaks the impact of standards into smaller components and estimates them separately. Change in consumer surplus to Indian consumers due to export of Indian mangoes to the US is captured through Harberger’s triangle, whereas the same for US consumers is estimated through a measure of consumers’ willingness to pay. The producer surplus is measured by change in value received net of compliance cost. The estimates for loss due to different regimes are quoted and modified from relevant research, whereas the pest invasion probabilities are quoted from literature or collected from relevant specialists. Costs of compliance and transportation are collected from traders, research institutions, and government agencies. The estimates are then summed up over countries for the respective commodities and compared in the gametheoretic framework. The strictly dominant Nash equilibrium is consistent with the present regime. The payoffs also conform to the policy arguments by the two countries negotiating to maximize own net welfare. The findings justify India’s insistence for MB treatment of wheat, as the loss from untreated wheat would be devastating for India. On the other hand, the present policy of nuclear irradiation of mangoes is the best strategy for US; however, the difference in payoff with complete ban and HWT strategies ranges within 2 to 4 per cent of the net welfare gains. This shows that SPS standards are more critical for the developing south. A brief sensitivity analysis is performed to point out that the developed north can afford to be more flexible in adopting SPS standards. The results show that it is more welfare augmenting for both the countries, individually as well as jointly, to adopt moderate level of SPS standards instead of complete ban or complete liberalization. This research assumed linearity and depended upon some binding assumptions due to data constraints. Relaxing such assumptions with more robust data generation, performing similar exercise for more commodities for negotiation, and incorporating transactions cost would be some major directions for further research. As a possibility for future research, a multilateral multicommodity negotiation process can also be explored in a general equilibrium framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Rastogi, Siddhartha, 2010. "Trade Standards for Welfare Maximization: A Case of Indo-US Trade in Wheat and Mango," Conference papers 330246, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:330246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/330246/files/4696_Rastogi.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Marette, Stephan & Schiavina, Alessandra, 1998. "Non-tariff Trade Barriers and Consumers' Information: The Case of the EU-US Trade Dispute over Beef," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 25(4), pages 437-462.
    3. Barrett, Christopher B. & Yang, Yi-Nung, 2001. "Rational incompatibility with international product standards," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 171-191, June.
    4. Peterson, Everett & Orden, David, 2006. "Linking Risk and Economic Assessments in the Analysis of Plant Pest Regulations: The Case of U.S. Imports of Mexican Avocados," Contractor and Cooperator Reports 292000, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Christensen, Laurits R & Jorgenson, Dale W & Lau, Lawrence J, 1973. "Transcendental Logarithmic Production Frontiers," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 55(1), pages 28-45, February.
    6. Caswell, Julie A. & Wang, Joanne, 2001. "Quantifying Regulatory Barriers To Asian-U.S. Food Trade," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 19(2), pages 1-8.
    7. Lionel Fontagné & Friedrich Von Kirchbach & Mondher Mimouni, 2005. "An Assessment of Environmentally‐ related Non‐tariff Measures," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(10), pages 1417-1439, October.
    8. McCallum, John, 1995. "National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 615-623, June.
    9. Calvin, Linda & Krissoff, Barry, 1998. "Technical Barriers To Trade: A Case Study Of Phytosanitary Barriers And U.S. - Japanese Apple Trade," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Koo, Won W. & Taylor, Richard D., 2008. "2008 Outlook of the U.S. and World Wheat Industries, 2007-2017," Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report 36757, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    11. K. Sato, 1967. "A Two-Level Constant-Elasticity-of-Substitution Production Function," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 34(2), pages 201-218.
    12. Wilson, John S. & Otsuki, Tsunehiro, 2001. "Global trade and food safety - winners and losers in a fragmented system," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2689, The World Bank.
    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. Deodhar, Satish Y. & Rastogi, Siddhartha K., 2008. "Indo-US Trade in Wheat and Mango: A Game-Theoretic Approach to SPS Standards," IIMA Working Papers WP2008-03-04, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    2. Inaba, Masaru & Nutahara, Kengo, 2009. "The role of investment wedges in the Carlstrom-Fuerst economy and business cycle accounting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 200-203, December.
    3. JINJI Naoto, 2009. "An Economic Theory of the SPS Agreement," Discussion papers 09033, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    4. Frédéric Reynès, 2011. "The cobb-douglas function as an approximation of other functions," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01069515, HAL.
    5. Olper, Alessandro & Raimondi, Valentina, 2004. "The border effect in agricultural markets between European Union, OECD and LDC countries," 85th Seminar, September 8-11, 2004, Florence, Italy 37817, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Julie A. Caswell, 2000. "An evaluation of risk analysis as applied to agricultural biotechnology (with a case study of gmo labeling)," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 115-123.
    7. Jean-Christophe Bureau & Sophie Drogue & Maria Priscila Ramos, 2003. "Economic implications of the Doha development agenda for Latin America and the Caribbean: non tariff measures," Post-Print hal-02828927, HAL.
    8. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/62drs526639gbqbrni9v9kvsv5 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Maskus, Keith E. & Wilson, John S. & Tsunehiro Otsuki, 2000. "Quantifying the impact of technical barriers to trade : a framework for analysis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2512, The World Bank.
    10. 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.
    11. Chengyan Yue & John Beghin & Helen H. Jensen, 2017. "Tariff Equivalent Of Technical Barriers To Trade With Imperfect Substitution And Trade Costs," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 9, pages 151-164, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Dormady, Noah & Roa-Henriquez, Alfredo & Rose, Adam, 2019. "Economic resilience of the firm: A production theory approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 446-460.
    13. John C. Beghin & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen, 2017. "Nontariff Measures and Standards in Trade and Global Value Chains," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 2, pages 13-38 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. 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..
    15. Frédéric Reynès, 2011. "The cobb-douglas function as an approximation of other functions," Working Papers hal-01069515, HAL.
    16. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09i29kgilc0 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. 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..
    18. Cook, David C., 2008. "Benefit cost analysis of an import access request," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 277-285, June.
    19. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09i29kgilc0 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. John C. Beghin & Heidi Schweizer, 2021. "Agricultural Trade Costs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 500-530, June.
    21. Devesh Raval, 2011. "Beyond Cobb-Douglas: Estimation of a CES Production Function with Factor Augmenting Technology," Working Papers 11-05, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    22. Steve Sorrell, 2014. "Energy Substitution, Technical Change and Rebound Effects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-24, April.
    23. Brox, James A., 2003. "The impact of free trade with the United States on the pattern of Canadian consumer spending and savings," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 69-87, March.

    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:pugtwp:330246. 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/gtpurus.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.