Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T06:52:29.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Analysis of Latin American Peanut Trade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Dae-Seob Lee ,
P. Lynn Kennedy  and
Stanley M. Fletcher
Dae-Seob Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
P. Lynn Kennedy
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Stanley M. Fletcher
Affiliation:
National Center for Peanut Competitiveness in the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics in the University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Get access

Abstract

The U.S. export share in the world peanut market has decreased due to heavy competition. In this paper, the Latin American peanut industry is modeled using seemingly unrelated regression (SUR). Based on these estimations, a scenario analysis was conducted. The results show that the Latin American demand is not affected dramatically by either domestic or world price shocks. The effects of price changes on net trade are noticeable. However, the world price does not significantly affect the Latin American peanut supply. The results imply that Latin American peanut farmers are more sensitive to changes in domestic prices than world price changes.

Keywords

agricultural tradeLatin Americapeanutsscenario analysisSURQ11Q17
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , April 2006 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2006

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

Beghin, J.C., Diop, N., Matthey, H., and Sewadeh, M.. “Groundnut Trade Liberalization: A South-South Debate?” Faculty working paper 03-WP 347, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, 2003.Google Scholar
Borges, R.B. “Trade and the Political Economy of Agricultural Policy: The Case of the United States Peanut Program.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 27(1995):595–612.Google Scholar
Borges, R.B., and Thurman, W.N.. “Marketing Quotas and Random Yields: Marginal Effects of Inframarginal Subsidies on Peanut Supply.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(1994):809-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foschi, P., and Kontoghiorghes, E.J.. “Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regression Models with Vector Autoregressive Disturbances.” Journal of Economics Dynamics and Control 28(2003): 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W.H.Econometric Analysis, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000.Google Scholar
Harmon, A.P., Preckel, V., and Eales, J.. “Entropy-Based Seemingly Unrelated Regression.” Staff paper 98-8, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, May 1998.Google Scholar
Judge, G.G., Griffiths, W.E., Hill, R.C., Lutkepohl, H., and Lee, T.C.. The Theory and Practice of Econometrics, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1985.Google Scholar
Judge, G.G., Griffiths, W.E., Hill, R.C., Lutkepohl, H., and Lee, T.C.. Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Econometrics, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanty, S., Beghin, J., and Kaus, P.. “Impacts of Federal Support Programs for Sugar and Peanuts Compared to Corn and Wheat on U.S. and World Markets.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of AAEA, Chicago, August 5-8, 2001.Google Scholar
Revoredo, C.L., and Fletcher, S.M.. World Peanut Market: An Overview of the Last 30 Years. Research Bulletin. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, 2002.Google Scholar
Rucker, R.R., and Thurman, W.N.. “The Economic Effects of Supply Controls: The Simple Analytics of the U.S. Peanut Program.” Journal of Law & Economics 33(1990):483–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seamon, V.F., and Kahl, K.H.. “An Analysis of Factors Affecting the Regional Cotton Basis.” Paper presented at the conference of NCR-134, Chicago, April 17-18, 2000.Google Scholar
Skully, D. “U.S. Tariff-Rate Quotas for Peanuts.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA/ERS). Oil Crops Situation and Outlook special report, October 1999.Google Scholar
Smith, E.G., and Womack, A.W.. “AMTA and Marketing Loan Program for U.S. Peanuts.” Agricultural and Food Policy Center Issue Paper 013, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics, February 2001.Google Scholar
Stout, J.V., and Ugaz-Pereda, J.. “Western Hemisphere Trading Blocs and Tariff Barriers for U.S. Agricultural Exports.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA/ERS), Regional Trade Agreements, and U.S. Agriculture Special Report (AER-771), 1998.Google Scholar
Thompson, S.R., Sul, D., and Bohl, M.T.. “Spatial Market Efficiency and Policy Regime Change: Seemingly Unrelated Error Correction Model Estimation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(2002): 1042-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA/ERS). Oilseed Situation and Outlook, various issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA/FAS). Oilseeds Markets and Trade. Cotton, Oilseeds, Tobacco, and Seeds division. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2000.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA/FAS). Production, Supply, and Distribution (PS&D) database, 2003. (www.fas.usda.gov/psd)Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA/FAS). Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Nicaragua. Attaché reports, various issues, (www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/AttacheRep/default.asp)Google Scholar