IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uerscc/292000.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Linking Risk and Economic Assessments in the Analysis of Plant Pest Regulations: The Case of U.S. Imports of Mexican Avocados

Author

Listed:
  • Peterson, Everett
  • Orden, David

Abstract

This study compares the effects of importing fresh Mexican Hass avocados into the United States under three scenarios for mitigating pest risks. The analysis finds that Scenario 1, adherence to the U.S. phytosanitary rule of November 2004—which removed all seasonal and geographic restrictions on Mexican avocados, while maintaining existing compliance procedures in Mexico—leads to low pest risks for U.S. producers and an estimated annual U.S. welfare gain of $72 million. In Scenario 2, if compliance measures specific to fruit fly control are eliminated along with seasonal and geographic restrictions, pest risks for U.S. producers remain low and there is an additional gain in net U.S. welfare of $1.7 million. Results for Scenario 3, which eliminates all control measures in Mexico, depends on the level of pest-risk estimated. With average risk, there is a gain in net U.S. welfare of about $8.5 million compared with eliminating only seasonal and geographic restrictions, but U.S. producers incur significant pest control costs. With maximum pest-risk estimates, the net gain in U.S. welfare is $16.2 million less than if only geographic and seasonal restrictions are eliminated, with larger pest control costs for U.S. producers and lower consumer welfare gains due to pest-related losses of U.S. avocados.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uerscc:292000
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.292000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/292000/files/ccr-25.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.292000?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. Venables, Anthony J, 1987. "Trade and Trade Policy with Differentiated Products: A Chamberlinian-Ricardian Model," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(387), pages 700-717, September.
    2. Carman, Hoy F. & Craft, R. Kim, 1998. "An Economic Evaluation of California Avocado Industry Marketing Programs, 1961-1995," Research Reports 11925, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation.
    3. Arndt, Channing & Hertel, Thomas W, 1997. "Revisiting "The Fallacy of Free Trade."," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 221-229, May.
    4. Roberts, Donna & Orden, David, 1995. "Determinants of Technical Barriers to Trade: The Case of US Phytosanitary Restrictions on Mexican Avocados, 1972-1995," 1995: Understanding Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade Conference, December 1995, Tucson, Arizona 50709, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    5. Philip L. Paarlberg & John G. Lee, 1998. "Import Restrictions in the Presence of a Health Risk: An Illustration Using FMD," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 175-183.
    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. David Orden & Donna Roberts, 2007. "Food regulation and trade under the WTO: ten years in perspective," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 37(s1), pages 103-118, December.
    2. Ferrier, Peyton Michael, 2008. "Illicit Agricultural Trade," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-15.
    3. Chemnitz, Christine & Grethe, Harald & Kleinwechter, Ulrich, 2007. "Quality Standards for Food Products - A Particular Burden for Small Producers in Developing Countries?," 106th Seminar, October 25-27, 2007, Montpellier, France 7926, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. 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.
    5. Ferrier, Peyton, 2010. "Irradiation as a quarantine treatment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 548-555, December.
    6. Linda Calvin & Barry Krissoff & William Foster, 2008. "Measuring the Costs and Trade Effects of Phytosanitary Protocols: A U.S.–Japanese Apple Example," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 120-135.
    7. 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.
    8. Cook, David C., 2008. "Benefit cost analysis of an import access request," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 277-285, June.

    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. Peterson, Everett B. & Evangelou, Phylo & Orden, David & Bakshi, Nishita, 2004. "An Economic Assessment Of Removing The Partial U.S. Import Ban On Fresh Mexican Hass Avocados," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19938, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. 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.
    3. Petry, Mark & Paarlberg, Philip L. & Lee, John G., 1999. "Prrs And The North American Swine Trade: A Trade Barrier Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Ferrier, Peyton & Peterson, Everett E. & Landes, Maurice, 2012. "Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes," Economic Research Report 262228, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Olson, Lars J., 2006. "The Economics of Terrestrial Invasive Species: A Review of the Literature," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 178-194, April.
    6. Miller, Andrew D. & Langley, Suchada V. & Chambers, William, 2003. "Current Issues Affecting Trade And Trade Policy: An Annotated Literature Review," Working Papers 14606, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    7. Pearson, Ken & Channing Arndt, 2000. "Implementing Systematic Sensitivity Analysis Using GEMPACK," GTAP Technical Papers 474, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    8. Trabold, Harald & Parvati Trubswetter & Philipp J H Schroder, 2003. "Intermediation in Foreign Trade: When do Exporters Rely on Intermediaries?," Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2003 206, Royal Economic Society.
    9. Stephen Devadoss & Kent Lanclos, 2000. "Trade in imperfectly competitive industries: the role of market size and consumer preferences," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(9), pages 1189-1200.
    10. Richard E Baldwin & Rikard Forslid, 2000. "The Core–Periphery Model and Endogenous Growth: Stabilizing and Destabilizing Integration," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 67(267), pages 307-324, August.
    11. Ker, Alan P., 2000. "Modeling Technical Trade Barriers Under Uncertainty," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-23, July.
    12. Bagwell, Kyle & Lee, Seung Hoon, 2020. "Trade policy under monopolistic competition with firm selection," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    13. Greenaway, David & Torstensson, Johan, 2000. "Economic Geography, Comparative Advantage and Trade within Industries: Evidence from the OECD," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 15, pages 260-280.
    14. David De Remer, 2013. "The Evolution of International Subsidy Rules," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2013-45, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    15. Toru Kikuchi, 2010. "A simple model of foreign brand penetration under monopolistic competition," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 100(3), pages 235-245, July.
    16. Paul S. Segerstrom & Yoichi Sugita, 2015. "The Impact Of Trade Liberalization On Industrial Productivity," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(6), pages 1167-1179, December.
    17. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W., 2012. "The economics of trade agreements in the linear Cournot delocation model," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 32-46.
    18. Davis, Donald R, 1998. "The Home Market, Trade, and Industrial Structure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1264-1276, December.
    19. Carman, Hoy F. & Li, Lan & Sexton, Richard J., 2006. "A New Framework for Evaluating Commodity Promotion Programs: What Can We Learn from Disaggregate Data?," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21229, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Takatsuka, Hajime & Zeng, Dao-Zhi, 2016. "Nontariff protection without an outside good," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 65-78.

    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:uerscc:292000. 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/ersgvus.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.