IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v80y2017icp209-217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An assessment of gains and losses from international trade in the forest sector

Author

Listed:
  • Buongiorno, Joseph
  • Johnston, Craig
  • Zhu, Shushuai

Abstract

The importance of international trade for the welfare of actors in the forest sector was estimated by comparing the current state of the world with a world in pure autarky with zero imports and exports of roundwood and manufactured wood products. The analysis was done with a comparative statics application of the Global Forest Products Model. The model was first calibrated to replicate observations in the base year 2013, and then solved under autarky conditions. The results showed much variation in the effects of international trade on production, consumption, and prices across countries and sub sectors. Globally international trade did have a positive effect on the economic welfare of the sector. This was due mostly to the positive effect on the surplus of consumers, and to a lesser extent on the increase in value added in forest industries. But value added profited manufacturers in developed countries much more than in developing. Furthermore, while wood producers in developed countries increased their profits with trade, those in developing countries incurred heavy losses that negated any incentive to invest in forest conservation, management and new plantations.

Suggested Citation

  • Buongiorno, Joseph & Johnston, Craig & Zhu, Shushuai, 2017. "An assessment of gains and losses from international trade in the forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 209-217.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:80:y:2017:i:c:p:209-217
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116304531
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buongiorno, Joseph & Rougieux, Paul & Barkaoui, Ahmed & Zhu, Shushuai & Harou, Patrice, 2014. "Potential impact of a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership on the global forest sector," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 252-266.
    2. Paul R. Krugman, 1991. "The move toward free trade zones," Proceedings - Economic Policy Symposium - Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pages 7-58.
    3. John Perez‐Garcia & Bruce Lippke & Janet Baker, 1997. "Trade Barriers In The Pacific Forest Sector: Who Wins And Who Loses," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(1), pages 87-103, January.
    4. van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Johnston, Craig, 2014. "Global impacts of Russian log export restrictions and the Canada–U.S. lumber dispute: Modeling trade in logs and lumber," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 54-66.
    5. Turner, James A. & Buongiorno, Joseph & Zhu, Shushuai, 2005. "Effects of the Free Trade Area of the Americas on Forest Resources," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-15, April.
    6. Wolfgang F. Stolper & Paul A. Samuelson, 1941. "Protection and Real Wages," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 9(1), pages 58-73.
    7. Turner, James A. & Buongiorno, Joseph & Zhu, Shushuai, 2005. "Effects of the Free Trade Area of the Americas on Forest Resources," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 104-118, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xufang Zhang & Changyou Sun & Jason Gordon & Ian A. Munn, 2020. "Determinants of Temporary Trade Barriers in Global Forest Products Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-13, May.
    2. Miguel Riviere & Sylvain Caurla, 2020. "Representations of the Forest Sector in Economic Models [Les représentations du secteur forestier dans les modèles économiques]," Post-Print hal-03088084, HAL.
    3. Lanhui Wang & Zichan Cui & Jari Kuuluvainen & Yongyu Sun, 2021. "Does Forest Industries in China Become Cleaner? A Prospective of Embodied Carbon Emission," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-11, February.
    4. Hosseini, Mojtaba & Brege, Staffan & Nord, Tomas, 2018. "A combined focused industry and company size investigation of the internationalization-performance relationship: The case of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) within the Swedish wood manufactu," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 110-121.
    5. Zhang, Xiaobiao & Yang, Hongqiang & Chen, Jiaxin, 2018. "Life-cycle carbon budget of China's harvested wood products in 1900–2015," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 181-192.
    6. Long, Ting & Pan, Huanxue & Dong, Chao & Qin, Tao & Ma, Ping, 2019. "Exploring the competitive evolution of global wood forest product trade based on complex network analysis," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 525(C), pages 1224-1232.
    7. Zhai, Jun & Kuusela, Olli-Pekka, 2022. "Incidence of domestic subsidies vs. export taxes: An equilibrium displacement model of log and lumber markets in Oregon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    8. Junqian Xu & Yong Liu & Liling Yang, 2018. "A Comparative Study of the Role of China and India in Sustainable Textile Competition in the U.S. Market under Green Trade Barriers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christian Morland & Franziska Schier, 2020. "Modelling Bioeconomy Scenario Pathways for the Forest Products Markets with Emerging Lignocellulosic Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Dani Rodrik, 2018. "Populism and the economics of globalization," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 12-33, June.
    3. Tschopp, Jeanne, 2015. "The Wage Response to Shocks: The Role of Inter-Occupational Labour Adjustment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 28-37.
    4. Kooten, G. Cornelis van, 2013. "Modeling Forest Trade in Logs and Lumber: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis," Working Papers 149182, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    5. Kis-Katos, Krisztina & Sparrow, Robert, 2015. "Poverty, labor markets and trade liberalization in Indonesia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 94-106.
    6. Michelle R. Garfinkel & Stergios Skaperdas & Constantinos Syropoulos, 2009. "International Trade and Transnational Insecurity: How Comparative Advantage and Power are Jointly Determined," Working Papers 080921, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    7. Kim, Hyeongwoo & Thompson, Henry, 2014. "Wages in a factor proportions model with energy input," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 495-501.
    8. Graciela Chichilnisky & Lance Taylor, 1980. "Agriculture and the Rest of the Economy: Macroconnections and Policy Restraints," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(2), pages 303-309.
    9. Amiti, Mary & Cameron, Lisa, 2012. "Trade Liberalization and the Wage Skill Premium: Evidence from Indonesia," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 277-287.
    10. Panagariya, A., 1997. "Preferential trading and the myth of natural trading partners," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 471-489, December.
    11. Séguin Dulude, Louise, 1986. "Quelques réflexions sur la complémentarité des approches marginaliste et managériale," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 62(2), pages 157-165, juin.
    12. Helpman, Elhanan & Razin, Assaf, 1979. "A Theory of International Trade Under Uncertainty," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 1, number 9780123396501 edited by Shell, Karl.
    13. Hisahiro Naito, 2003. "Atkinson and Stiglitz Theorem with Endogenous Human Capital Accumulation," ISER Discussion Paper 0596, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    14. Stark, Oded & Kosiorowski, Grzegorz, 2020. "An Adverse Social Welfare Effect of Quadruply Gainful Trade," East Asian Economic Review, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, vol. 24(3), pages 207-235, September.
    15. Jagdambe, Subhash & Kannan, Elumalai, 2020. "Effects of ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement on agricultural trade: The gravity model approach," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    16. Isaac K. Ofori & Mark K. Armah & Emmanuel E. Asmah, 2021. "Towards the Reversal of Poverty and Income Inequality Setbacks Due to COVID-19: The Role of Globalisation and Resource Allocation," Working Papers 21/043, European Xtramile Centre of African Studies (EXCAS).
    17. Florentina Chirodea & Luminita Soproni & Mihai Marian, 2023. "European Union Tools for the Sustainable Development of Border Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-18, December.
    18. Sampson, Thomas, 2016. "Assignment reversals: Trade, skill allocation and wage inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 365-409.
    19. David Hummels & Jakob R. Munch & Chong Xiang, 2018. "Offshoring and Labor Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 981-1028, September.
    20. Rod Tyers & Aaron Walker, 2016. "Quantifying Australia's ‘Three-Speed’ Boom," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 49(1), pages 20-43, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:80:y:2017:i:c:p:209-217. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.