Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:41:44.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Catfish Imports on the U.S. Wholesale and Farm Sectors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Andrew Muhammad ,
Sammy J. Neal ,
Terrill R. Hanson  and
Keithly G. Jones
Andrew Muhammad
Affiliation:
International Demand and Trade Branch, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, in Washington, D.C.
Sammy J. Neal
Affiliation:
National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, in Columbus, Ohio
Terrill R. Hanson
Affiliation:
Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures at Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama
Keithly G. Jones
Affiliation:
Animal Products and Cost of Production Branch, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, in Washington, D.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The primary objective of this study was to assess the impact of catfish imports and tariffs on the U.S. catfish industry, with particular focus on the U.S. International Trade Commission ruling on Vietnam in 2003. Given the importance of Vietnam to the U.S. catfish market, it was assumed that catfish import prices would increase by 35 percent if the maximum tariff was imposed on catfish from Vietnam. With the tariff, domestic catfish prices at the wholesale level would increase by $0.06 per lb, and farm prices by $0.03 per lb. Processor sales would increase by 1.66 percent. Total welfare at the wholesale level would increase from $69.2 million to $71.7 million, an increase of about 3.63 percent, and processor and farm revenue would increase by 4.4 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively. These results represent the greatest possible benefit and suggest modest gains for the U.S. catfish industry.

Keywords

catfish importssimultaneous equationssupplydemandtariffs
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , October 2010 , pp. 429 - 441
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 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

Brambilla, I., Porto, G., and Tarozzi, A. 2009. “Adjusting to Trade-Policy Changes in Export Markets: Evidence from U.S. Antidumping Duties on Vietnamese Catfish.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series No. 4990, World Bank, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Crutchfield, S.R. 1985. “An Econometric Model of the Market for New England Groundfish.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 14(2): 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federal Register. 2003. “Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.” Federal Register 68(155): 47909–47910.Google Scholar
Green, W.H. 1997. Econometric Analysis (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
Green, W.H. 2008. Econometric Analysis (6th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
Hanson, T.R., and Sites, D. 2009. “2008 Catfish Database.” Information Report No. 2009-01, Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. Available at http://www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/aquaculture/catfish-database/catfísh-2008.php (accessed May 10, 2009).Google Scholar
Johnston, J. 1984. Econometric Methods (3rd edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H.W. 2003. “Futility of Targeted Fish Tariffs and an Alternative.” Marine Resources Economics 18(3): 211–224.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H.W., and Miao, Y. 1999. “Media-Specific Returns to Generic Advertising: The Case of Catfish.” Agribusiness: An International Journal 15(1): 81–99.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H.W., and Myrland, Ø. 2006. “The Effectiveness of Antidumping Measures: Some Evidence for Farmed Atlantic Salmon.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(3): 459–477.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H., Sindelar, S., Wineholt, D., and Hatch, U. 1988. “Processor Demand and Price-Markup Functions for Catfish: A Disaggregated Analysis with Implications for the Off-Flavor Problem.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 20(2): 81–92.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H.W., and Thomas, M. 1997. “Optimal Media Allocation Decisions for Generic Advertising.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 48(3): 425–441.Google Scholar
Ligeon, C., Jolly, C.M., and Jackson, J.D. 1996. “Evaluation of the Possible Threat of NAFTA on U.S. Catfish Industry Using a Traditional Import Demand Function.” Journal of Food Distribution Research 27(2): 33–41.Google Scholar
Marsh, J.M. 2003. “Impacts of Declining U.S. Retail Beef Demand on Farm-Level Beef Prices and Production.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(4): 902–913.Google Scholar
Marsh, J.M. 2007. “Cross-Sector Relationships between the Corn Feed Grains and Livestock and Poultry Economics.” Journal of Agricultural and Resources Economics 32(1): 93–114.Google Scholar
Martin, M.F. 2009. “U.S.-Vietnam Economic and Trade Relations: Issues for the 111th Congress.” Congressional Research Service Report No. R40755, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Muhammad, A., and Jones, K.G. 2009. “An Assessment of Dynamic Behavior in the U.S. Catfish Market: An Application of the Generalized Dynamic Rotterdam Model.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41(4): 745–759.Google Scholar
Norman-López, A., and Asche, F. 2008. “Competition between Imported Tilapia and US Catfish in the US Market.” Marine Resource Economics 23(2): 199–214.Google Scholar
Quagrainie, K.K., and Engle, C.R. 2002. “Analysis of Catfish Pricing and Market Dynamics: The Role of Imported Catfish.” Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 33(4): 389–397.Google Scholar
Stoler, A. 2003. “Treatment of China as a Non-Market Economy: Implications for Antidumping and Countervailing Measures and Impact on Chinese Company Operations in the WTO Framework.” Presentation at the Shanghai WTO Affairs Consultation Center in December 2003. Available at http://www.iit.adelaide.edu.au/docs/Shanghai%20Speech.pdf (accessed January 17, 2009).Google Scholar
Torbjørn, L. 2009. “The Salmon-Agreement between Norway and the European Union—A Welfare Economic Analysis.” The International Trade Journal 23(1): 4–30.Google Scholar
Traesupap, S., Matsuda, Y., and Shima, H. 1999. “An Econometric Estimation of Japanese Shrimp Supply and Demand During the 1990s.” Aquaculture Economics and Management 3(3): 215–221.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 2003. “Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam.” Fact Sheet, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Available at www.ita.doc.gov/media/FactSheet/0603/catfish_final_061703.html (accessed on June 24, 2008).Google Scholar
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). 2003. “Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam.” Publication No. 3617, ITC, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
USITC [see U.S. International Trade Commission].Google Scholar
Zidack, W., Kinnucan, H.W., and Hatch, U. 1992. “Wholesaleand Farm-Level Impacts of Generic Advertising: The Case of Catfish.” Applied Economics 24(9): 959–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar