Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T00:33:49.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare Impacts of the Mexico Potato Quarantine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Timothy J. Richards ,
Ignacio Molina  and
Osman Hussein
Timothy J. Richards
Affiliation:
Morrison School of Management and Agribusiness, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ
Ignacio Molina
Affiliation:
Morrison School of Management and Agribusiness, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ
Osman Hussein
Affiliation:
Morrison School of Management and Agribusiness, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) tariffs on U.S. potato imports to Mexico were phased out by 1993. Citing phytosanitary issues, in 1996, the Mexican government placed quantitative restrictions on U.S. potato imports and restricted their import only to designated border areas. This article estimates the welfare cost of restricting U.S. potato imports into Mexico. We find that removing trade restrictions may lead to over 1.8 million tons of new imports into Mexico, a gain of consumer surplus of 4.0 billion pesos per year, and a loss of 2.9 billion pesos of producer surplus.

Keywords

international tradenon-tariff barrierspotatoesquarantinesanitary and phytosanitary barrierswelfare lossF13L13Q13Q17C35
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , December 2009 , pp. 761 - 776
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2009

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

Anderson, S.P., and de Palma, A. “The Logit as a Model of Product Differentiation.” Oxford Economic Papers 44(1992):51–67.Google Scholar
Anderson, S.P., de Palma, A., and Thisse, J.-F. Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R.E. “Measuring the Effects of Non-Tariff Trade-Distorting Policies.” Trade Theory and Economic Reform: North, South, and East. de Melo, J. and Sapir, A, eds., pp. 25–42. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1991.Google Scholar
Barquera, S., Hotz, C., Rivera, J., Tolentino, L., Espinoza, J., Campos, I., and Shaman., T. “Case Studies from Six Developing Countries.” FAO Food and Nutrition Papers, No. 84. Rome, Italy: Food Consumption, Food Expenditure, Anthropometric Status and Nutrition-Related Diseases in Mexico, 2006.Google Scholar
Beghin, J.C., and Bureau, J.-C. “Quantification of Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Technical Barriers to Trade for Trade Policy Analysis.” Working paper 01-WP 291. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, December, 2001.Google Scholar
Berry, S. “Estimating Discrete-Choice Models of Product Differentiation.” The Rand Journal of Economics 25(1994):242–62.Google Scholar
Berry, S., Levinsohn, J., and Pakes., A. “Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium.” Econometrica 63(1995):841–90.Google Scholar
Calvin, L., and Krissoff., B. “Technical Barriers to Trade: A Case Study of Phytosanitary Barriers and U.S.-Japanese Apple Trade.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 23(1998): 351–66.Google Scholar
Diewert, E. “An Application of the Shepherd Duality Theorem: A Generalized Leontief Production Function.” The Journal of Political Economy 79(1971):481–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Agricultural Organization. FAOSTAT. Internet site: http://faostat.fao.org/site/291/default.aspx (Accessed October 2008).Google Scholar
Hausman, J. “Specification Tests in Econometrics.” Econometrica 46(1978): 1251–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickock, S. “The Consumer Cost of U.S. Trade Restrictions.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Quarterly Review Summer(1985):1–12.Google Scholar
Jabalera, S.H., Hernandez, C.D., Covarrabias, O.R., and Gutierrez, F.X.F. “ La Industria de Papa en Mexico: Un Diagnostico de la Situación Actual .” Documento de Trabaja 2000—2. Lima, Peru: Centro Internacional de la Papa, 2000.Google Scholar
Josling, T. “An Analytical Framework for Assessing the Trade Impact of SPS and TBT Regulations.” Paper presented at the ERS-USDA Technical Barriers to Trade Workshop, Washington, D.C., October 8-9, 1997.Google Scholar
Orden, D., and Romano., E. “The Avocado Dispute and Other Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade Under NAFTA.” Paper presented at the Tri-National Research Symposium titled “NAFTA and Agriculture: Is the Experiment Working?” San Antonio, TX, November 1-2, 1996.Google Scholar
Paarlberg, P., and Lee., J. “Import Restrictions in the Presence of a Health Risk: An Illustration Using FMD.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1998): 175–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, E.B., and Orden., D. “Avocado Pests and Avocado Trade.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(2008):321–35.Google Scholar
Peterson, E.W.F., Paggi, M., and Henry., G. “Quality Restrictions as Barriers to Trade: The Case of European Community Regulations on the Use of Hormones.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 13(1988):82–91.Google Scholar
Petry, M., Paarlberg, P.L., and Lee., J.G. “PRRS and the North American Swine Trade: A Trade Barrier Analysis.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 31(1999):425–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qaim, M. “Transgenic Virus Resistant Potatoes in Mexico: Potential Socioeconomic Implications of North-South Biotechnology Transfer.” Brief No. 7. Ithaca, NY: Center for Development Research, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, 1998.Google Scholar
Roberts, D. and Krissoff., B. “Regulatory Barriers in International Horticultural Markets.” Washington, D.C.: USDA, Economic Research Service, WRS-04-01, January 2004.Google Scholar
Roberts, D., and Orden., D. “Determinants of Technical Barriers to Trade: The Case of U.S. Phytosanitary Restrictions on Mexican Avocados, 1972–1995.” Understanding Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade, Orden, D. and Roberts, D., eds., pp. 117–60. St. Paul, MN: Conference Proceedings. Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, 1997.Google Scholar
Santiago-Cruz, M.J., and Salazar, J.A.G. “Situación Actual de la Agroindustria de la Papa en Mexico.” Instituto de Socioeconomía, Estadística e Informática del Colegio de Post-graduados en Ciencias Agrícolas, Campus Estado de México, Noviembre 2000.Google Scholar
Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación, Servicio de Información y Estadística Agroalimentaria Pesquera. Sistema de Información Agroalimentaria de Consulta 1980–2005 (SIACON). 2006. Internet site: http://www.siea.sagarpa.gob.mx/ar_comanuar.html (Accessed September 19, 2008).Google Scholar
Senasica, Mexico Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Rural Development. NOM012-FITO-1996 Mexican Official Standard Sets Up External Quarantine Procedures Aimed to Prevent Introduction of Potato-Related Pests. 2006. Internet site: http://148.243.71.63/default.asp?doc=609 (Accessed September 10, 2008).Google Scholar
Shumway, C.R., and Lim., H. “Functional Form and U.S. Agricultural Production Elasticities.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 18(1993) :266–76.Google Scholar
Sumner, D., and Lee., H. “Sanitary and Phytosanitary Trade Barriers and Empirical Trade Modeling.” Understanding Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade. Orden, D. and Roberts, D., eds., pp. 273–83. St. Paul, MN: Conference Proceedings. Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, 1997.Google Scholar
Tecnologico de Monterrey “The Economic Impact on the Final Consumer of Fresh Potatoes Based on the Technical and Commercial Barriers.” Project report prepared for Grupo PM, S.A. de C.V. Monterrey, Mexico, January 2007.Google Scholar
Thilmany, D.D., and Barrett., C.B. “Regulatory Barriers in an Integrating World Food Market.” Review of Agricultural Economics 19(1997): 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. FASOnline. Internet site: http://www.fas.usda.gov/Ustrade/ (Accessed September 14, 2008).Google Scholar
Yue, C., Beghin, J., and Jensen., H.H. “Tariff Equivalent of Technical Barriers to Trade with Imperfect Substitution and Trade Costs.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(2006):947–60.Google Scholar