The EU’s pesticides MRLs harmonization: effect on trade, prices and quality

IF 6.8 1区 经济学 Q1 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY Food Policy Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102634
Anirudh Shingal , Malte Ehrich
{"title":"The EU’s pesticides MRLs harmonization: effect on trade, prices and quality","authors":"Anirudh Shingal ,&nbsp;Malte Ehrich","doi":"10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In September 2008, the European Commission harmonized Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) in pesticides across EU Member States. We examine the effect of this policy change on trade, prices and quality via two alternative channels — the relative restrictiveness of a food standard imposed by an EU importer vis-a-vis trading partners from both within and outside the Common Market; and regulatory heterogeneity across EU Member States. We find strong evidence for adverse effects of both dyadic restrictiveness and within-EU regulatory heterogeneity on intra- and extra-EU trade at the extensive and intensive margins in the pre-harmonization period. Our findings further suggest that the EU’s MRL harmonization increased intra-EU trade; the probability and value of exports of its non-EU (both OECD and developing country) partners; and led to quality upgrading and lower prices of the traded products. The harmonization-induced rise in non-EU OECD exports to the EU also underlines the need for UK product standards to be closely aligned with those of EU27 post-Brexit.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":321,"journal":{"name":"Food Policy","volume":"125 ","pages":"Article 102634"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Policy","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919224000459","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In September 2008, the European Commission harmonized Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) in pesticides across EU Member States. We examine the effect of this policy change on trade, prices and quality via two alternative channels — the relative restrictiveness of a food standard imposed by an EU importer vis-a-vis trading partners from both within and outside the Common Market; and regulatory heterogeneity across EU Member States. We find strong evidence for adverse effects of both dyadic restrictiveness and within-EU regulatory heterogeneity on intra- and extra-EU trade at the extensive and intensive margins in the pre-harmonization period. Our findings further suggest that the EU’s MRL harmonization increased intra-EU trade; the probability and value of exports of its non-EU (both OECD and developing country) partners; and led to quality upgrading and lower prices of the traded products. The harmonization-induced rise in non-EU OECD exports to the EU also underlines the need for UK product standards to be closely aligned with those of EU27 post-Brexit.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧盟农药最大残留限量的协调:对贸易、价格和质量的影响
2008 年 9 月,欧盟委员会统一了欧盟各成员国的农药最高残留限量(MRL)。我们通过两种渠道研究了这一政策变化对贸易、价格和质量的影响--欧盟进口国对共同市场内外贸易伙伴实施的食品标准的相对限制性;以及欧盟成员国之间的监管异质性。我们发现了强有力的证据,表明在统一前时期,欧盟内部的二元限制性和监管异质性对欧盟内部和外部贸易的广阔边际和密集边际产生了不利影响。我们的研究结果进一步表明,欧盟最大残留限量的协调增加了欧盟内部的贸易,提高了非欧盟(经合组织和发展中国家)伙伴的出口概率和价值,并导致了贸易产品的质量升级和价格下降。统一引起的非欧盟经合组织对欧盟出口的增加也突出表明,英国产品标准在脱欧后需要与欧盟 27 国的标准紧密接轨。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Food Policy
Food Policy 管理科学-农业经济与政策
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.60%
发文量
128
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: Food Policy is a multidisciplinary journal publishing original research and novel evidence on issues in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies for the food sector in developing, transition, and advanced economies. Our main focus is on the economic and social aspect of food policy, and we prioritize empirical studies informing international food policy debates. Provided that articles make a clear and explicit contribution to food policy debates of international interest, we consider papers from any of the social sciences. Papers from other disciplines (e.g., law) will be considered only if they provide a key policy contribution, and are written in a style which is accessible to a social science readership.
期刊最新文献
Consumer Preferences for Low-Methane Beef: The Impact of Pre-Purchase Information, Point-of-Purchase Labels, and Increasing Prices Viewpoint: Toward a sustainable Green Revolution in sub-Saharan Africa: The case of maize and rice Expanding the phytosanitary exclusion zone for Mexican avocados: Market impacts and unintended consequences Small wins in practice: Learnings from 16 European initiatives working towards the transformation of urban food systems Information interventions and willingness to pay for PICS bags: Evidence from Sierra Leone
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1