Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:39:41.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Increasing the United States Tariff-Rate Sugar Quota for Cuba and Mexico: A Partial-Equilibrium Simulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Daniel R. Petrolia  and
P. Lynn Kennedy
Daniel R. Petrolia
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
P. Lynn Kennedy
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increases in the United States tariff-rate quota for sugar are simulated to determine the impact of Cuban market access and an increased Mexican allotment. The effects on both domestic and international sugar markets, including production, consumption, prices, and trade, are determined and welfare effects identified. This analysis is carried out using a partial-equilibrium simplified world trade model, Modele Internationale Simplifié de Simulation (MISS), which simulates, in a comparative-static framework, the effects of various policy actions.

Keywords

CubaMexicosugartariff-rate quotaF13F17Q17
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , December 2003 , pp. 589 - 597
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2003

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

Alvarez, J., and Castellanos, L.P.. “Preliminary Study of the Sugar Industries in Cuba and Florida Within the Context of the World Sugar Market.” International Working Paper IW 95-6, International Agricultural Trade and Development Center, Food and Resource Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, March 1995.Google Scholar
Devadoss, S., Kropf, J., and Wahl, T.. “Trade Creation and Diversion Effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement of U.S. Sugar Imports from Mexico.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 20(1995):215–230.Google Scholar
Economic Research Service (ERS). “Sugar and Sweetener: Policy.” United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Briefing Room. Internet site: http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/sugar/policy.htm (Accessed May 10, 2001).Google Scholar
Economic Research Service (ERS). “U.S.-Mexico Sweetener Trade Mired in Dispute.” Agricultural Outlook, pp. 17–20. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1999.Google Scholar
Gardiner, W.H., Roningen, V.O., and Liu, K.. “Elasticities in the Trade Liberalization Database.” Staff Report No. AGEC 89-20. Washington, DC: Agriculture and Trade Analysis Division, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1989.Google Scholar
Henneberry, P.D., and Haley, S.L.. “Implications of NAFTA Duty Reductions for the U.S. Sugar Market.” Sugar and Sweetener Situation and Outlook Report. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1998.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., Mahé, L., and Roe, T.. “Trade Compromises between the EC and the U.S.: An Interest Group-Game Theory Approach.” Journal of Policy Modeling 15(1993):99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurenas, R. “Sugar Policy Issues.” SRS Issue Brief for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. Internet site: http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/agriculture/ag-27.pdf (Accessed February 19, 2002).Google Scholar
Kennedy, P.L., and Hughes, K.W.. “Welfare Effects of Agricultural Trading Blocs: The Simulation of a North American Customs Union.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 23(1998):99–109.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P.L., von Witzke, H., and Roe, T.L.. “Strategic Agricultural Trade Policy Interdependence and the Exchange Rate: A Game Theoretic Analysis.” Public Choice 88(1996):43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahé, L., Tavera, C., and Trochet, T.. “Analysis of Interaction between EC and U.S. Policies with a Simplified World Trade Model: MISS.” Background paper for the Report to the Commission of the European Communities on Disharmonies in EC and US Agricultural Policies. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Station d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales de Rennes, 1988.Google Scholar
Messina, W.A., and Seale, J.L. Jr.. “U.S. Sugar Policy and the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act: Conflicts between Domestic and Foreign Policy Objectives.” Review of Agricultural Economics 15(1993):167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigua, C.A. “The Implications of Trade Liberalization for Sugar in the United States.” Master's thesis, Louisiana State University and A&M College, 1992.Google Scholar
Tanyeri-Abur, A., McCarl, B.A., Chang, C.C., Knutson, R.D., Peterson, E.W.F., and Coble, K.H.. “An Analysis of Possible Sugar U.S. Import Policy Revisions.” Review of Agricultural Economics 15(1993):255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyers, R., and Anderson, K.. Disarray in World Food Markets: A Quantitative Assessment. Hong Kong: Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, FAS). GAIN Report. Washington, DC: Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agriculture Information Network, various issues.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, FAS). Sugar and Sweetener Situation and Outlook. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, May and September, 2000.Google Scholar
Uri, N.D., and Boyd, R.. “Assessing the Impact of the Sugar Programme on the Economy U.S..” Food Policy 19(1999):443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar