Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:48:10.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measurement and Political Economy of Disputed Technical Regulations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Suzanne Thornsbury ,
Donna Roberts  and
David Orden
Suzanne Thornsbury
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Donna Roberts
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Washington, DC
David Orden
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Technical regulations are increasingly visible in agricultural trade, yet their idiosyncratic nature has limited prior aggregate analysis. This article draws on a unique data source for systematic enumeration of the technical regulations questioned by one exporter among all of its trading partners in mid-1996. Political economy analysis indicates that barriers decrease when the relative contribution of agriculture to an economy increases, when the anticipated future level of protection through other forms of government intervention increases, and when economies are more open. Despite increased scrutiny and discipline by the World Trade Organization, technical barriers remain a significant impediment in world agricultural markets.

Keywords

limited dependent variablesanitary and phytosanitaryWTOF13F14C21C24
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , December 2004 , pp. 559 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2004

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

Abbott, F.L. “The Intersection of Law and Trade in the WTO System.” Understanding Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade, Orden, D. and Roberts, D., eds., pp. 33–48. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, 1997.Google Scholar
Calvin, L., and Krissoff, B.. “Technical Barriers to Trade: The Case of Phytosanitary Barriers and U.S.-Japanese Apple Trade.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 23(1998):351–66.Google Scholar
DeGorter, H., and Tsur, Y.. “Explaining Price Policy Bias in Agriculture: The Calculus of Support-Maximizing Politicians.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(1991):1244–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, P. “International Marketing Margins for Agricultural Products: Effects of Some Nontar-iff Trade Barriers.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1998):325–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawande, K. “Are U.S. Nontariff Barriers Retaliatory? An Application of Extreme Bounds Analysis in the TOBIT Model.” Review of Economics and Statistics 77(1995):677–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grilli, E., and Sassoon, E.. The New Protectionist Wave. New York: New York University Press, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honma, M., and Hayami, Y.. “Structure of Agricultural Protection in Industrial Countries.” Journal of International Economics 20(1986):115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium. The Role of Product Attributes in the Agricultural Negotiations. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics, Commissioned Paper Number 17, 2001.Google Scholar
Kherallah, M., and Beghin, J.. “U.S. Trade Threats: Rhetoric or War?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1998):15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liao, T.F.Interpreting Probability Models: Logit, Probit, and Other Generalized Linear Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maskus, K., and Wilson, J.. Quantifying the Impact of Technical Barriers to Trade: Can it be Done? Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNiel, D. “The First Case Under the WTO's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement: The European Union's Hormone Ban.” Virginia Journal of International Law 39(1998):90–134.Google Scholar
Nielsen, C, and Anderson, K.. “GMOs, Trade Policy and Welfare in Rich and Poor Countries.” Quantifying the Impact of Technical Barriers to Trade: Can it be Done? Maskus, K. and Wilson, J., eds., pp. 155–84. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Orden, D., and Romano, E.. “The Avocado Dispute and Other Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade under NAFTA.” Paper presented at the conference NAFTA and Agriculture: Is the Experiment Working? San Antonio, TX, November 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
Roberts, D. “Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Trade Regulations.” Journal of International Economic Law 1,3(1998):377–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, D., and DeRemer, K.. Overview of Foreign Technical Barriers to U.S. Agricultural Exports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ERS Commercial Agricultural Division, Staff Paper AGES-9705, 1997.Google Scholar
Victor, D. “The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the World Trade Organization: An Assessment After Five Years.” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics (2000):865–937.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization. “EU Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones).” Arbitration under Article 21.3 (c) of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, Geneva: World Trade Organization, WT/DS26/15 and WT/DS48/13, May 27, 1998.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization. The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar