IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331210.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economy-wide Costs for Norway of Food Trade Restrictions

Author

Listed:
  • Gaasland, Ivar

Abstract

Different sectors of the Norwegian food industry have diverging trade interests. Owing to climatic disadvantage, agriculture depends on substantial support to keep up production. Fisheries and fish farming, on the other hand, are profitable industries hampered by trade restrictions in the export markets. A special purpose comparative static AGE model is employed to highlight these diverging interests and to consider economy-wide costs of the food trade restrictions. The study suggests that a 66% drop in subsidies and tariffs may elevate household economic welfare by 2% to 5%. Less budget support to the farmers and lower food prices are the main sources of this gain, as well as higher rents in fisheries and fish farming.

Suggested Citation

  • Gaasland, Ivar, 2004. "Economy-wide Costs for Norway of Food Trade Restrictions," Conference papers 331210, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331210/files/1525.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernard Hoekman & Francis Ng & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2002. "Eliminating Excessive Tariffs on Exports of Least Developed Countries," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, June.
    2. Scott Bradford, 2003. "Paying the Price: Final Goods Protection in OECD Countries," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(1), pages 24-37, February.
    3. Howard J. Wall, 1999. "Using the gravity model to estimate the costs of protection," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue Jan, pages 33-40.
    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. Bouët, Antoine & Fontagné, Lionel & Mimouni, Mondher, 2003. "Direct Measure of Protection: A Rehabilitation," Conference papers 331157, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Protection: Mission Impossible?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 577-616, July.
    3. Lionel Fontagné & Thierry Mayer & Soledad Zignago, 2005. "Trade in the Triad: how easy is the access to large markets?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(4), pages 1401-1430, November.
    4. Büthe Tim, 2010. "Engineering Uncontestedness? The Origins and Institutional Development of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(3), pages 1-64, October.
    5. Jouini, Nizar & Rebei, Nooman, 2012. "The Welfare Implications of Services Liberalization in a Developing Country," Conference papers 332271, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    6. Peter Egger & Douglas Nelson, 2011. "How Bad Is Antidumping? Evidence from Panel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1374-1390, November.
    7. Schaefer Kurt C & Anderson Michael A & Ferrantino Michael J, 2008. "Monte Carlo Appraisals of Gravity Model Specifications," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-26, February.
    8. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    9. Hiau LooiKee & Alessandro Nicita & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2009. "Estimating Trade Restrictiveness Indices," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 172-199, January.
    10. Eromenko, Igor & Mankovska, Nadiya & Dean, James W, 2003. "Will WTO membership really improve market access for Ukrainian exports?," MPRA Paper 67481, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Murat Genç & David Law, 2014. "A Gravity Model of Barriers to Trade in New Zealand," Treasury Working Paper Series 14/05, New Zealand Treasury.
    12. Garth Frazer & Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2010. "Trade Growth under the African Growth and Opportunity Act," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 128-144, February.
    13. Mohamed Hedi Bchir & Lionel Fontagné & Sébastien Jean, 2005. "From Bound Duties to Actual Protection: Industrial Liberalisation in the Doha Round," Working Papers 2005-12, CEPII research center.
    14. Joseph Francois & Will Martin & Vlad Manole, 2005. "Choosing formulas for market access negotiations: efficiency and market access considerations," Chapters, in: Sisira Jayasuriya (ed.), Trade Policy Reforms and Development, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Kahn, Matthew E., 2003. "The geography of US pollution intensive trade: evidence from 1958 to 1994," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 383-400, July.
    16. Kym Anderson, 2003. "Trade Liberalization, Agriculture, and Poverty in Low-income Countries," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-25, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    17. Giovanni Facchini & Johannes Van Biesebroeck & Gerald Willmann, 2006. "Protection for sale with imperfect rent capturing," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 845-873, August.
    18. Gordhan K. Saini, 2009. "Non-tariff measures and Indian textiles and clothing exports," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2009-002, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    19. Nazif Durmaz & John Kagochi, 2018. "Democracy and Inter-Regional Trade Enhancement in Sub-Saharan Africa: Gravity Model," Economies, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-17, August.
    20. Christophe Rault & Robert Sova & Ana Maria Sova, 2008. "The Role of Association Agreements within European Union Enlargement to Central and Eastern European Countries," Aussenwirtschaft, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science, Swiss Institute for International Economics and Applied Economics Research, vol. 63(03), pages 309-328, September.

    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:331210. 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.