Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:57:49.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of the Canada-U.S. Hog/Pork Trade Dispute on the Composition of U.S. Pork Imports

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Bruno Larue  and
Jean-Philippe Gervais
Bruno Larue
Affiliation:
The Département d'Économie Rurale, Université Laval, Ste-Foy, Québec, Canada
Jean-Philippe Gervais
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Get access

Abstract

Trade theorists have demonstrated that different trade policy instruments have different effects on the quality and source of imports. Countervailing duties (CVDs), like specific tariffs, should induce quality upgrading. However, the magnitude and timing of the quality adjustments are influenced by the credibility of the duties that can be legally contested and modified after annual administrative reviews. Index numbers are used to assess the timing and magnitude of the product mix and country mix substitution effects in U.S. pork imports in response to the U.S. CVDs on Canadian exports of live hogs and fresh, chilled, and frozen pork.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , October 1996 , pp. 187 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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

AW, B.Y., and Roberts, M.J. 1986. “Estimating Quality Change in Quota-constrained Import Markets: The Case of U.S. Footwear.” Journal of International Economics 21: 45–60.Google Scholar
AW, B.Y., and Roberts, M.J. 1988. “Price and Quality Level Comparisons for U.S. Footwear Imports: An Application of Multilateral Index Numbers. In Empirical Methods for International Trade, ed. Feenstra, R.C. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bark, T., and de Melo, J. 1987. “Export Mix Adjustment to the Imposition of VERs: Alternative Allocation Schemes.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 123: 668–78.Google Scholar
Bhagwati, J.N. 1988. Protectionism Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chinloy, P. 1980. “Source of Quality Change in Labor Input.” American Economic Review: 108–19.Google Scholar
Davis, G.C. 1995. “Product Differentiation and Representative Agent Import Demand Systems: A Reconsideration and Reconciliation.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 43: 149–64.Google Scholar
Das, S.P., and Donnenfeld, S. 1987. “Trade Policy and its Impact on Quality of Imports: A Welfare Analysis.” Journal of International Economics 23: 77–95.Google Scholar
De Melo, J., and Winters, L.A. 1993. “Price and Quality Effects of VERs Revisited: A Case Study of Korean Footwear Exports.” Journal of Economic Integration 8: 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewert, W.E. 1978. “Superlative Index Numbers and Consistency in Aggregation.” Econometrica 46: 883–900.Google Scholar
Diewert, W.E. 1981. “The Economic Theory of Index Numbers: A Survey.” In Essays in the Theory and Measurement of Consumer Behavior in Honour of Sir Richard Stone, ed. Deaton, A., 163–208. London: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Diewert, W.E. 1993a. “The Early History of Price Index Research.” In Essays in Index Number Theory, Vol. 1, ed. Diewert, W.E. and Nakamura, A.O., 33–65. Amsterdam: North Holland. Google Scholar
Diewert, W.E. 1993b. “Index Numbers.” In Essays in Index Number Theory, Vol. 1, ed. Diewert, W.E. and Nakamura, A.O., 71–104. Amsterdam: North Holland. Google Scholar
Falvey, R.E. 1979. “The Composition of Trade within Import Restricted Product Categories.” Journal of Political Economy 87: 1105–14.Google Scholar
Feenstra, R.C. 1984. “Voluntary Export Restraints in U.S. Autos, 1980-81: Quality Employment and Welfare Effects.” In The Structure and Evolution of Recent U.S. Trade Policy, ed. Baldwin, R. and Krueger, A.O., 35–59. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
Feenstra, R.C. 1988. “Quality Change under Trade Restraints in Japanese Autos.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 102: 131–46.Google Scholar
Hulten, C.R. 1973. “Divisia Index Numbers.” Econometrica 41: 1017–26.Google Scholar
Krishna, K. 1987. “Tariffs vs Quotas with Endogenous Quality.” Journal of International Economics 23: 96–112.Google Scholar
Larue, B., and Lapan, H.E. 1992. “Market Structure, Quality and the World Wheat Market.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 40: 311–28.Google Scholar
Leamer, E.E. 1988. “Cross-Section Estimation of the Effects of Trade Barriers.” In Empirical Methods for International Trade, ed. Feenstra, R.C., 51–82. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Mintz, I. 1973. U.S. Import Quotas: Costs and Consequences. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
Moschini, G., and Meilke, K.D. 1992. “Production Subsidy and CVDs in Vertically Related Markets: The Hog-Pork Case between Canada and the United States.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74: 951–61.Google Scholar
U.S. Trade Relations Division (USTRD). United States Trade and Economics Policy Bureau. 1993. U.S. Trade Remedy Law-A Ten Year Experience.Google Scholar
Vousden, N. 1990. The Economics of Trade Protection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar