Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:22:47.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of a Differentially Applied Environmental Regulation on Agricultural Trade Patterns and Production Location: The Case of Methyl Bromide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Lori Lynch ,
Scott Malcolm  and
David Zilberman
Lori Lynch
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maryland, College Park
Scott Malcolm
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Delaware, Newark
David Zilberman
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been hypothesized that differentially applied environmental regulations create pollution havens, as firms will choose to invest in countries with lax environmental standards. Using a theoretical model of pest control adoption and an empirical spatial equilibrium model, we examine one such environmental regulation, a U.S. ban on methyl bromide, to determine if an agricultural pollution haven will be created in Mexico. Alterations in agricultural production location, trade patterns, and methyl bromide use are determined. We find that, under the assumptions held, Mexico will not dramatically increase its use of methyl bromide following the ban. Sensitivity analysis to this result is conducted.

Keywords

tradeenvironmental regulationsmethyl bromideproduction locationspatial equilibrium modelpesticide adoption
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , April 2005 , pp. 54 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural Marketing Service. Various years. The following publications were consulted: “Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Arrivals in Western Cities,” Atlanta Wholesale Market Prices, Fresh Fruits and Vegetables,” “Chicago Fruit and Vegetable Wholesale Market Prices,” “Los Angeles Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Wholesale Market Prices,” “Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Shipments,” and “New York City Wholesale Prices and Arrivals” (the last unpublished by Scott Miller). Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Agricultural Marketing Service. Various years. “Fruit and Vegetable Truck Rate and Cost Summary.” Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
AMS [see Agricultural Marketing Service].Google Scholar
CAADES. 1996. “Presentacion de Resultados Temporada Horticola, 1990-1995.” Asembla Estatal Especializada de Productores de Hortalizas, Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico. Google Scholar
California Agricultural Statistics Service. Various years. “Agricultural Commissioners’ Data.” California Agricultural Statistics Service, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
California Strawberry Commission. 1998. Strawberry production statistics provided by Christopher Winterbottom, California Strawberry Commission, Watsonville, CA.Google Scholar
Calvin, L., and Barrios, V. 1998. “Marketing Winter Vegetables from Mexico.” Vegetables and Specialties Situation and Outlook Report (April): 29–38. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J., Gianessi, L., and Lynch, L. 2000. “The Economic Impact of the Scheduled U.S. Phaseout of Methyl Bromide.” National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, D.C. Available online at http://www.ncfap.org (accessed April 2000).Google Scholar
Confederation of Agriculture Associations of the State of Sinaloa [see CAADES].Google Scholar
Cook, R.L., Benito, C., Matson, J., Runsten, D., Shwedel, K., and Taylor, T. 1991. “Implications of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for the U.S. Horticultural Sector.” In NAFTA: Effects on Agriculture (Vol. IV: “Fruit and Vegetable Issues”). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Copeland, B.R., and Taylor, M.S. 2003. “Trade, Growth and the Environment.” Working Paper No. 9823, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Dean, J.M. 1992. “Trade and the Environment: A Survey of the Literature.” In Low, P., ed., International Trade and the Environment. World Bank Discussion Paper No. 159, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Dean, J.M., Lovely, M.E., and Wang, H. 2005. “Are Foreign Investors Attracted to Weak Environmental Regulations? Evaluating the Evidence from China.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3505, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deepak, M.S., Spreen, T., and VanSickle, J., 1994. “An Analysis of the Impact of a Ban on Methyl Bromide on the U.S. Winter Fresh Vegetable Market.” University of Florida, Gainesville. Google Scholar
Deepak, M.S., Spreen, T., and VanSickle, J. 1996. “An Analysis of the Impact of a Ban on Methyl Bromide on the U.S. Winter Fresh Vegetable Market.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 28(2): 433–443.Google Scholar
EPA [see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency].Google Scholar
Ferguson, W., and Padula, A. 1994. “Economic Effects of Banning Methyl Bromide for Soil Fumigation.” Agricultural Economics Report No. 677 (pp. 1-11), Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. Various years. Florida Agricultural Statistics, Vegetable Summary. Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, Tallahassee, FL.Google Scholar
Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service. 1997. “Georgia Agricultural Facts.” Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service, Atlanta, GA. Google Scholar
Lynch, L. 1996. “Agricultural Trade and Environmental Concerns: Three Essays Exploring Pest Control Regulations and Environmental Issues.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
McCarl, B.A., and Spreen, T.H. 1980. “Price Endogenous Mathematical Programming Models as a Tool for Sector Analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62(1): 87–102.Google Scholar
Mexican Department of Agriculuture. Various years. “3.” Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganaderia y Desarrollo Rural, Centro de Estadistica Agropecuaria.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Statistics Service. Various years. “Agricultural Prices Annual Summary.” National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Nordstrom, H., and Vaughan, W. 1999. Trade and the Environment. World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
North Carolina Agricultural Statistics Service. Various years. “Vegetable Summary.” North Carolina Agricultural Statistics Service, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
Peters, M.A., and Spreen, T.H. 1989. “Price Endogenous Mathematical Programming Models and Integrability: An Alternative Approach.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(5): 1342.Google Scholar
Scott, S.W. 1991. “International Competition and Demand in the United States Fresh Winter Vegetable Industry.” Master's thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Sonoran Growers’ Association. Various years. Personal communication. Sonora, Mexico.Google Scholar
South Carolina Agricultural Statistics Service. Various years. Unpublished vegetable production statistics, South Carolina Agricultural Statistics Service, Columbia, SC.Google Scholar
Spreen, T.H., VanSickle, J.J., Moseley, A.E., Deepak, M.S., and Mathers, L. 1995. “Use of Methyl Bromide and the Economic Impact of Its Proposed Ban on the Florida Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Industry.” University of Florida Technical Bulletin No. 898, University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Sullivan, J. (ed.). 1994. “Environmental Policies: Implications for Agricultural Trade.” Agricultural Economic Report No. 252 (June). Agriculture and Trade Analysis Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Sunding, D., Yarkin, C., Zilberman, D., Siebert, J., and Marco, A. 1993. “Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Cancellation in California.” California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA. Google Scholar
Takayama, T., and Judge, G.G. 1971. Spatial and Temporal Price and Allocation Models. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Texas Agricultural Statistics Service. Various years. “Vegetable Summary.” Texas Agricultural Statistics Service, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
Urbach, F. 1990. “Ozone Depletion: Health and Environmental Consequences.” Nature 344(6267): 598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1993. The Biologic and Economic Assessment of Methyl Bromide.” National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Mexican import data provided by Ron Sponaugle, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Riverdale, MD.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. “Methyl Bromide Use Information.” Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/background/index.html (accessed April 8, 2005).Google Scholar
VanSickle, J.J., Belibasis, E., Cantliffe, D., Thompson, G., and Oebker, N. 1994. “Competition in the U.S. Winter Fresh Vegetable Industry.” Agricultural Economics Report No. 691, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Wilson, P., Thompson, G.D., and Cook, R. 1997. “Mother-Nature, Business Strategy, and Economics.” Choices (1st Quarter): 18–25.Google Scholar
Willig, R.D. 1976. “Consumer Surplus without Apology.” American Economic Review 66(4): 589–597.Google Scholar
Yarkin, C., Sunding, D., Zilberman, D., and Siebert, J. 1994. “All Crops Should Not Be Treated Equally.” California Agriculture 48 (May-June): 10–15.Google Scholar