Abstract In this article, the reasons why developing countries trade fewer agricultural products than developed countries are analyzed. Based on earlier findings that low trade volume in the agricultural sector is due to high trade costs, the focus is on evaluating the extent to which bilateral trade costs in the agricultural sector differ among trading partners. Using a neo-Ricardian trade model, the results show that systematically, asymmetric bilateral trade costs and variation in the level of agricultural productivity across all countries in the sample, are the main barriers to developing countries’ agricultural exports. In addition, low-income countries face higher trade costs to export than do high-income countries.
{"title":"Asymmetric Trade Costs: Agricultural Trade among Developing and Developed Countries","authors":"Jihyun Eum, I. Sheldon, S. Thompson","doi":"10.1515/jafio-2017-0035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2017-0035","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, the reasons why developing countries trade fewer agricultural products than developed countries are analyzed. Based on earlier findings that low trade volume in the agricultural sector is due to high trade costs, the focus is on evaluating the extent to which bilateral trade costs in the agricultural sector differ among trading partners. Using a neo-Ricardian trade model, the results show that systematically, asymmetric bilateral trade costs and variation in the level of agricultural productivity across all countries in the sample, are the main barriers to developing countries’ agricultural exports. In addition, low-income countries face higher trade costs to export than do high-income countries.","PeriodicalId":52541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jafio-2017-0035","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42840078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract We examine the short-run forecasting problem in a data set of daily prices from 134 corn buying locations from seven states – Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Kansas. We ask the question: is there useful forecasting information in the cash bids from nearby markets? We use several criteria, including a Granger causality criterion, to specify forecast models that rely on the recent history of a market, the recent histories of nearby markets, and the recent histories of futures prices. For about 65% of the markets studied, the model consisting of futures prices, a market’s own history, and the history of nearby markets forecasts better than a model only incorporating futures prices and the market’s own history. That is, nearby markets have predictive content. But the magnitude varies with the forecast horizon. For short-run forecasts, the forecast accuracy improvement from including nearby markets is modest. As the forecast horizon increases, however, including nearby prices tends to significantly improve forecasts. We also examine the role played by physical market density in determining the value of incorporating nearby prices into a forecast model.
{"title":"Using Local Information to Improve Short-Run Corn Price Forecasts","authors":"Xiaojie Xu","doi":"10.1515/jafio-2017-0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2017-0018","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We examine the short-run forecasting problem in a data set of daily prices from 134 corn buying locations from seven states – Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Kansas. We ask the question: is there useful forecasting information in the cash bids from nearby markets? We use several criteria, including a Granger causality criterion, to specify forecast models that rely on the recent history of a market, the recent histories of nearby markets, and the recent histories of futures prices. For about 65% of the markets studied, the model consisting of futures prices, a market’s own history, and the history of nearby markets forecasts better than a model only incorporating futures prices and the market’s own history. That is, nearby markets have predictive content. But the magnitude varies with the forecast horizon. For short-run forecasts, the forecast accuracy improvement from including nearby markets is modest. As the forecast horizon increases, however, including nearby prices tends to significantly improve forecasts. We also examine the role played by physical market density in determining the value of incorporating nearby prices into a forecast model.","PeriodicalId":52541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jafio-2017-0018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66825844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article determines the potential effects of policies to address concerns about lower producer prices due to increased use of marketing agreements. Policies considered are banning alternative marketing agreements, compensating producers who sell on the cash market, and restricting the quantity of marketing agreements. We use an agent-based model in a common-value auction framework to analyze these policies. The common-value auction framework is used because it closely resembles how livestock are actually purchased. The agent-based model is used to find the common-value auction equilibrium. A ban on marketing agreements reduces social welfare and the other policy interventions have little effect on prices. Past theoretical studies predict marketing agreements will cause large reductions in prices paid to producers. Conversely, empirical studies show slight effects. This article offers an alternative theory that more closely matches livestock markets and our results reduce the gap between theoretical and empirical research. The common-value auction model predicts negative effects on producer prices close to those found in past empirical research.
{"title":"Alternative Policy Responses to Increased Use of Formula Pricing","authors":"B. Brorsen, J. Fain, J. Maples","doi":"10.1515/jafio-2017-0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2017-0008","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article determines the potential effects of policies to address concerns about lower producer prices due to increased use of marketing agreements. Policies considered are banning alternative marketing agreements, compensating producers who sell on the cash market, and restricting the quantity of marketing agreements. We use an agent-based model in a common-value auction framework to analyze these policies. The common-value auction framework is used because it closely resembles how livestock are actually purchased. The agent-based model is used to find the common-value auction equilibrium. A ban on marketing agreements reduces social welfare and the other policy interventions have little effect on prices. Past theoretical studies predict marketing agreements will cause large reductions in prices paid to producers. Conversely, empirical studies show slight effects. This article offers an alternative theory that more closely matches livestock markets and our results reduce the gap between theoretical and empirical research. The common-value auction model predicts negative effects on producer prices close to those found in past empirical research.","PeriodicalId":52541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42894940","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper examines the relationship between food-related trademark activity, approximating for branding and marketing efforts, and food exports for the 48 contiguous states of the US over the period 1999–2015. We find a strong and positive relationship between these two variables. Further robustness checks, including an instrumental variables approach, provide evidence that marketing and branding activities contribute to food exports. With respect to food export policy our results point to providing incentives to the private sector (cooperatives, farmers, firms) to pursue marketing and branding efforts.
{"title":"The Contribution of Marketing and Branding Efforts in Food Exports: Evidence from Panel Data","authors":"Kyriakos Drivas","doi":"10.1515/JAFIO-2017-0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/JAFIO-2017-0006","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper examines the relationship between food-related trademark activity, approximating for branding and marketing efforts, and food exports for the 48 contiguous states of the US over the period 1999–2015. We find a strong and positive relationship between these two variables. Further robustness checks, including an instrumental variables approach, provide evidence that marketing and branding activities contribute to food exports. With respect to food export policy our results point to providing incentives to the private sector (cooperatives, farmers, firms) to pursue marketing and branding efforts.","PeriodicalId":52541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/JAFIO-2017-0006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44187010","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract We use patent data to study product, process, and marketing innovation in the food and drink industry. From 1994 to 2005, only 61 of 194 U.S. public food and drink manufacturers patented some type of innovation. Furthermore, we find patent ownership is most common to large corporations, and most patented innovations relate to new designs and processes as opposed to new products. According to our empirical panel analysis, however, stock market investors find patent ownership of new product innovations the most valuable, although the intensity of patent ownership is not of utmost importance. Instead, we conclude patent quality is better able to explain variability in the stock market valuation of U.S. food and drink manufacturers. Specifically, a one-percent increase in the quality of patented innovations in food and drink products facilitates a 0.07 % increase in firm value, corresponding to almost $6 million for the mean innovating firm in the U.S. public food and drink industry.
{"title":"Patented Innovation and Firm Value in the U.S. Food and Drink Industry: The Economic Importance of High-Quality Product Innovation","authors":"J. Grashuis, S. Dary","doi":"10.1515/jafio-2017-0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2017-0002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We use patent data to study product, process, and marketing innovation in the food and drink industry. From 1994 to 2005, only 61 of 194 U.S. public food and drink manufacturers patented some type of innovation. Furthermore, we find patent ownership is most common to large corporations, and most patented innovations relate to new designs and processes as opposed to new products. According to our empirical panel analysis, however, stock market investors find patent ownership of new product innovations the most valuable, although the intensity of patent ownership is not of utmost importance. Instead, we conclude patent quality is better able to explain variability in the stock market valuation of U.S. food and drink manufacturers. Specifically, a one-percent increase in the quality of patented innovations in food and drink products facilitates a 0.07 % increase in firm value, corresponding to almost $6 million for the mean innovating firm in the U.S. public food and drink industry.","PeriodicalId":52541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jafio-2017-0002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45584969","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Agustina Malvido Pérez Carletti, M. Hanisch, Jens Rommel, M. Fulton
Abstract In this paper, we use a unique data set of the prices paid to farmers in Argentina for grapes to examine the prices paid by non-varietal wine processing cooperatives and investor-oriented firms (IOFs). Motivated by contrasting theoretical predictions of cooperative price effects generated by the yardstick of competition and property rights theories, we apply a multilevel regression model to identify price differences at the transaction level and the departmental level. On average, farmers selling to cooperatives receive a 3.4 % lower price than farmers selling to IOFs. However, we find cooperatives pay approximately 2.4 % more in departments where cooperatives have larger market shares. We suggest that the inability of cooperatives to pay a price equal to or greater than the one paid by IOFs can be explained by the market structure for non-varietal wine in Argentina. Specifically, there is evidence that cooperative members differ from other farmers in terms of size, assets and the cost of accessing the market. We conclude that the analysis of cooperative pricing cannot solely focus on the price differential between cooperatives and IOFs, but instead must consider other factors that are important to the members.
{"title":"Farm Gate Prices for Non-Varietal Wine in Argentina: A Multilevel Comparison of the Prices Paid by Cooperatives and Investor-Oriented Firms","authors":"Agustina Malvido Pérez Carletti, M. Hanisch, Jens Rommel, M. Fulton","doi":"10.1515/jafio-2016-0036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2016-0036","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper, we use a unique data set of the prices paid to farmers in Argentina for grapes to examine the prices paid by non-varietal wine processing cooperatives and investor-oriented firms (IOFs). Motivated by contrasting theoretical predictions of cooperative price effects generated by the yardstick of competition and property rights theories, we apply a multilevel regression model to identify price differences at the transaction level and the departmental level. On average, farmers selling to cooperatives receive a 3.4 % lower price than farmers selling to IOFs. However, we find cooperatives pay approximately 2.4 % more in departments where cooperatives have larger market shares. We suggest that the inability of cooperatives to pay a price equal to or greater than the one paid by IOFs can be explained by the market structure for non-varietal wine in Argentina. Specifically, there is evidence that cooperative members differ from other farmers in terms of size, assets and the cost of accessing the market. We conclude that the analysis of cooperative pricing cannot solely focus on the price differential between cooperatives and IOFs, but instead must consider other factors that are important to the members.","PeriodicalId":52541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jafio-2016-0036","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42791901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Production location matters to many consumers and regulators and policymakers are pressed to statue on labels about country of origin, local foods and geographical indications (GIs). This paper investigates the incidence of the EU policy on GIs on bilateral trade flows. We develop ttheoretical arguments and provide empirical evidence to analyze heterogeneity in consumer preferences regarding country of origin (domestic versus foreign) and the implicit quality signals from GI logos. The objective of the paper is to investigate whether producing GIs really boots bilateral trade, assuming heterogeneity in consumers’ preference. We first develop an analytical framework of a simple partial equilibrium two-country model through a Cobb-Douglas utility structure to assess the impact of GIs on trade. In addition, we empirically corroborate the analytical findings with a unique data on protected GIs by product and European country. Our main findings indicate that GI-products have ambiguous effect on international trade. Indeed, their trade-impact depends on the importance of product for consumers (i. e., the intensity and the reputation of GI-product considered as deterministic weight in consumers’ preference). As expected, a heterogeneity in consumers’ preference – due to home bias about local or foreign varieties – can increase or decrease trade, despite the presence of GI-products.
{"title":"Do Geographical Indications Really Increase Trade? A Conceptual Framework and Empirics","authors":"Zakaria Sorgho, B. Larue","doi":"10.1515/jafio-2017-0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2017-0010","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Production location matters to many consumers and regulators and policymakers are pressed to statue on labels about country of origin, local foods and geographical indications (GIs). This paper investigates the incidence of the EU policy on GIs on bilateral trade flows. We develop ttheoretical arguments and provide empirical evidence to analyze heterogeneity in consumer preferences regarding country of origin (domestic versus foreign) and the implicit quality signals from GI logos. The objective of the paper is to investigate whether producing GIs really boots bilateral trade, assuming heterogeneity in consumers’ preference. We first develop an analytical framework of a simple partial equilibrium two-country model through a Cobb-Douglas utility structure to assess the impact of GIs on trade. In addition, we empirically corroborate the analytical findings with a unique data on protected GIs by product and European country. Our main findings indicate that GI-products have ambiguous effect on international trade. Indeed, their trade-impact depends on the importance of product for consumers (i. e., the intensity and the reputation of GI-product considered as deterministic weight in consumers’ preference). As expected, a heterogeneity in consumers’ preference – due to home bias about local or foreign varieties – can increase or decrease trade, despite the presence of GI-products.","PeriodicalId":52541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jafio-2017-0010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45875468","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract We pair Nielsen TDLinx data, 2004–2014, with Consumer Price Index data to investigate how changes in food retail market structure drive food price inflation. We find, in corroboration with much of the evidence to date, that market concentration is positively and significantly associated with higher food prices. We find the same to be true for store format concentration, or the homogeneity of food markets. As the market shares, or penetration, of supercenters, warehouse stores, limited assortment stores, and superettes increase at expense of traditional supermarkets, food price inflation decreases.
{"title":"Structure and Food Price Inflation","authors":"Ilya Rahkovsky, R. Volpe","doi":"10.1515/jafio-2017-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2017-0004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We pair Nielsen TDLinx data, 2004–2014, with Consumer Price Index data to investigate how changes in food retail market structure drive food price inflation. We find, in corroboration with much of the evidence to date, that market concentration is positively and significantly associated with higher food prices. We find the same to be true for store format concentration, or the homogeneity of food markets. As the market shares, or penetration, of supercenters, warehouse stores, limited assortment stores, and superettes increase at expense of traditional supermarkets, food price inflation decreases.","PeriodicalId":52541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jafio-2017-0004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46894490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Import policies in the European Union have greatly restricted beef imports from all sources. The presence of a binding tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on beef imports in tandem with sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions on biotechnological food products specifically inhibit beef imports from the United States and limit market access in the EU. Potential passage of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership may lead to a loosening of non-tariff measures (NTM) that serve as technical barriers to trade and give rise to the coexistence of hormone and non-hormone beef products in the EU marketplace. This research assesses the potential changes in import demand for beef under a trade agreement that allows for imports of conventional beef as well as an expansion of the existing TRQ in the EU beef import market. Results confirm that EU imports of beef will increase from all sources with an expansion of the TRQ and that elimination of the NTM related to beef production practices leads to an increase in competiveness of U.S. and Australian beef in the EU import market.
{"title":"The Effects of T-TIP Market Access Reform on EU Beef Import Demand","authors":"Amanda M. Countryman, A. Muhammad","doi":"10.1515/jafio-2016-0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2016-0018","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Import policies in the European Union have greatly restricted beef imports from all sources. The presence of a binding tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on beef imports in tandem with sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions on biotechnological food products specifically inhibit beef imports from the United States and limit market access in the EU. Potential passage of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership may lead to a loosening of non-tariff measures (NTM) that serve as technical barriers to trade and give rise to the coexistence of hormone and non-hormone beef products in the EU marketplace. This research assesses the potential changes in import demand for beef under a trade agreement that allows for imports of conventional beef as well as an expansion of the existing TRQ in the EU beef import market. Results confirm that EU imports of beef will increase from all sources with an expansion of the TRQ and that elimination of the NTM related to beef production practices leads to an increase in competiveness of U.S. and Australian beef in the EU import market.","PeriodicalId":52541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jafio-2016-0018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47766518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) was concluded on October 5, 2015, by twelve countries that include the United States, Japan, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Under the TPPA, Japan will partially liberalize its five politically sensitive agricultural subsectors: (1) rice, (2) beef and pork, (3) wheat and barley, (4) sugar, and (5) dairy, none of which contain any genetically modified (GM) content. Under full liberalization, Japanese producers in these subsectors will lose (e. g., rice producers will lose over $6 billion and beef producers will lose over $2 billion). Excluding butter, the trade impact of the TPPA on the Japanese government will be negative because of tariff and resale-revenue losses. Our empirical results provide the full effects of complete trade liberalization. However, because the TPPA negotiations of 2015 resulted in only partial trade liberalization, our results can be easily modified to deal with the degree to which trade distortions are removed for each of the above agricultural subsectors. In terms of producers who lose from trade liberalization, the Japanese government will provide compensation.
{"title":"The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Japan’s Agricultural Trade","authors":"A. Schmitz, Manhong Zhu, D. Zilberman","doi":"10.1515/jafio-2017-0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2017-0001","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) was concluded on October 5, 2015, by twelve countries that include the United States, Japan, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Under the TPPA, Japan will partially liberalize its five politically sensitive agricultural subsectors: (1) rice, (2) beef and pork, (3) wheat and barley, (4) sugar, and (5) dairy, none of which contain any genetically modified (GM) content. Under full liberalization, Japanese producers in these subsectors will lose (e. g., rice producers will lose over $6 billion and beef producers will lose over $2 billion). Excluding butter, the trade impact of the TPPA on the Japanese government will be negative because of tariff and resale-revenue losses. Our empirical results provide the full effects of complete trade liberalization. However, because the TPPA negotiations of 2015 resulted in only partial trade liberalization, our results can be easily modified to deal with the degree to which trade distortions are removed for each of the above agricultural subsectors. In terms of producers who lose from trade liberalization, the Japanese government will provide compensation.","PeriodicalId":52541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jafio-2017-0001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47969378","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：