IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/332300.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Drink More Milk: Policies Supporting the Indonesian Dairy Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Vanzetti, David
  • Nur Rakhman, Setyoko
  • Oktaviani, Rina

Abstract

The Indonesian Government believes that milk is good for health, particularly infant health, and has a campaign to encourage consumption of fresh milk. At present per capita consumption of fresh milk, at 12 litres per head per annum, is very low and the Government hopes to double it. Fresh milk is not traded internationally so one of the consequences of encouraging consumption is to support the local dairy industry at the expense of domestic and imported suppliers of milk powder and other substitutes. On the supply side milk production per cow is also very low by international standards, at 1,740 litres a year. The Government has policies to increase both the number of dairy cattle and productivity, and ultimately to achieve self-sufficiency. There are also in place tariffs of 5-10 per cent on dairy product imports, but some of these are scheduled to be removed under existing free trade agreements. A computable general equilibrium model, GTAP, is used to estimate the impact of the fresh milk campaign, the removal of tariffs, and increases in production and productivity. The fresh milk campaign is modelled as a consumption tax to bring about a given change in domestic demand. The closure is switched to endogenise the tax. A production shift is modelled as an output subsidy, and a productivity shift as an exogenous output enhancing productivity shock. No attempt is made to measure the benefits of drinking fresh milk, although these are presumed to be positive. The results suggest supply side policies predominantly benefit consumers and demand side shocks benefit producers to a greater degree. Faced with constant and inelastic demand, a production increase drives down prices by more than the change in output. The removal of tariffs on dairy products would not be beneficial for Indonesian producers. However, producers would benefit from a shift in demand brought about by the fresh milk campaign and from a taxpayer funded output subsidy. From a consumer perspective, the fresh milk campaign would drive up the price, so existing fresh milk consumers would be worse off. However, supply side policies would provide benefits to consumers. Both a subsidy on milk producers and a productivity improvement would result in lower prices to consumers. Likewise, the elimination of tariffs benefits consumers, although not those who wish to drink fresh milk. The fresh milk campaign is likely to prove beneficial but it remains to be seen how effective it may be, the cost involved, and the magnitude of the health benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanzetti, David & Nur Rakhman, Setyoko & Oktaviani, Rina, 2013. "Drink More Milk: Policies Supporting the Indonesian Dairy Industry," Conference papers 332300, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:332300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/332300/files/6214.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bambang Ali Nugroho, 2011. "The Relevance of a Rules-based Fresh Milk Price Structure Policy in East Java: An Evidence Based Assessment," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 1(2), pages 50-55.
    2. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, 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. Simon J.Evenett & Mia Mikic & Ravi Ratnayake (ed.), 2011. "Trade-led growth: A sound strategy for Asia," ARTNeT Books and Research Reports, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), number brr10.
    2. Eromenko, Igor, 2010. "Accession to the WTO. Computable General Equilibrium Analysis: the Case of Ukraine. Part I," MPRA Paper 67476, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Ianchovichina, Elena, 2004. "Trade policy analysis in the presence of duty drawbacks," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 353-371, April.
    4. Ivanic, Maros & Martin, Will, 2010. "Promoting Global Agricultural Growth and Poverty Reduction," Conference papers 331944, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    5. Ronald D. Sands & Katja Schumacher & Hannah Forster, 2014. "U.S. CO2 Mitigation in a Global Context: Welfare, Trade and Land Use," The Energy Journal, , vol. 35(1_suppl), pages 181-198, June.
    6. Sergey Paltsev & John Reilly, 2007. "Long-Term Energy Scenarios for Asia," Energy and Environmental Modeling 2007 24000047, EcoMod.
    7. Pierre Boulanger & Hasan Dudu & Emanuele Ferrari & George Philippidis, 2016. "Russian Roulette at the Trade Table: A Specific Factors CGE Analysis of an Agri-food Import Ban," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 272-291, June.
    8. Gruere, Guillaume P. & Mevel, Simon & Bouet, Antoine, 2007. "Genetically Modified Rice, International Trade, and First-Mover Advantage: The Case of India and China," 2007: China's Agricultural Trade: Issues and Prospects Symposium, July 2007, Beijing, China 55032, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    9. Peterson, Everett B., 2004. "A Comparison of Marketing Margins Across Sectors, Users, and Regions," Conference papers 331224, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    10. Jiang, Tingsong, 2003. "The Impact of China's WTO Accession on its Regional Economies," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 11.
    11. Knut Einar Rosendahl & Jon Strand, 2011. "Carbon Leakage from the Clean Development Mechanism," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 27-50.
    12. Henseler, Martin & Piot-Lepetit, Isabelle & Ferrari, Emanuele & Mellado, Aida Gonzalez & Banse, Martin & Grethe, Harald & Parisi, Claudia & Hélaine, Sophie, 2013. "On the asynchronous approvals of GM crops: Potential market impacts of a trade disruption of EU soy imports," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 166-176.
    13. Adams, Philip D., 2008. "Insurance against Catastrophic Climate Change: How Much Will an Emissions Trading Scheme Cost Australia?," Conference papers 331770, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    14. Alvaro Calzadilla & Katrin Rehdanz & Richard S.J. Tol, 2008. "The Eonomic Impact Of More Sustainable Water Use In Agriculture: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis," Working Papers FNU-169, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Dec 2008.
    15. Roberto Roson & Richard Damania, the World Bank, Washington D.C., 2016. "Simulating the Macroeconomic Impact of Future Water Scarcity," EcoMod2016 9167, EcoMod.
    16. Alexandre Gohin & GianCarlo Moschini, 2006. "Evaluating the Market and Welfare Impacts of Agricultural Policies in Developed Countries: Comparison of Partial and General Equilibrium Measures," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 195-211.
    17. Grant, Jason H. & Hertel, Thomas W. & Rutherford, Thomas F., 2006. "Extending General Equilibrium to the Tariff Line: U.S. Dairy in the DOHA Development Agenda," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25305, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Fontagné, Lionel & Laborde, David & Mitaritonna, Maria Cristina, 2007. "Assessing the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs): a product level approach," Conference papers 331611, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    19. 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.
    20. Pavel Ciaian & d'Artis Kancs & Jan Pokrivcak, 2008. "Comparative Advantages, Transaction Costs and Factor Content of Agricultural Trade: Empirical Evidence from the CEE," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2008_03, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Livestock Production/Industries; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;

    JEL classification:

    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products

    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:pugtwp:332300. 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.