IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331133.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring Border Crossing Costs and their Impact on Trade Flows: The United States-Mexican Trucking Case

Author

Listed:
  • Fox, Alan K.
  • Francois, Joseph F.
  • Londoño-Kent, Pilar

Abstract

This article presents the economic implications of the costs and times of crossing the border between the United States and Mexico. We measure the microeconomic impact of the inefficiencies of crossing the U.S.-Mexican border on shippers. We identify and explain the institutional factors and vested interests that permit cross-border inefficiencies to appear and endure and estimate the costs of these inefficiencies associated with cross-border movements between the U.S. and Mexico. Inefficiencies here are defined as money paid by shippers for charges for non-essential bordercrossing services. These inefficiencies not only cost exporters and importers time and money— they also cause welfare losses to the entire economy because of the distortions they introduce to consumption and sourcing decisions. In order to measure both the primary and secondary impacts of these nontariff barriers, we use the General Trade Analysis Project-GTAP- model to simulate the removal of iceberg trade costs equal in magnitude to the measured nontariff barriers at the U.S.- Mexican border. The measures of inefficiency at the U.S.-Mexican border come from detailed border surveys and data analysis performed by Haralambides and Londoño-Kent (“Impediments to Free Trade: The Case of Trucking and NAFTA in the U.S.-Mexican Border”, mimeo, 2002). These measures of distortion are then used to calibrate an iceberg tariff within the GTAP model. We aggregate the GTAP version 5 database to 5 regions (U.S., Mexico, Canada, EU, Rest of World) and to 11 sectors. The removal of iceberg tariffs is simulated by shocking the values of the variable AMS, augmenting technical change for the relevant sectors and trade flows. We estimate that removal of such barriers would benefit the Mexican economy by $1.8 billion per year, while the U.S. economy would see a welfare increase of about $1.4 billion per year. Trade flows between Mexico and the United States would likewise increase, with southbound trade expanding by about $6 billion and northbound trade growing by about $1 billion per year.

Suggested Citation

  • Fox, Alan K. & Francois, Joseph F. & Londoño-Kent, Pilar, 2003. "Measuring Border Crossing Costs and their Impact on Trade Flows: The United States-Mexican Trucking Case," Conference papers 331133, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331133/files/1340.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Warwick J. McKibbin & Martin T. Ross & Robert Shackleton & Peter J. Wilcoxen, 1999. "Emissions Trading, Capital Flows and the Kyoto Protocol," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 287-333.
    2. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, December.
    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. Fox, Alan & Londono-Kent, Pilar, 2016. "Border Crossing for Trucks Twenty Three Years after NAFTA," Conference papers 332783, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.

    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. Delin, Huang, 2012. "Policy Implications and Mitigation Potential in China Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emission," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 124848, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Dixon, Peter B. & Rimmer, Maureen T., 2002. "USAGE-ITC: Theoretical Structure," Conference papers 331009, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    3. Onno Kuik, 2003. "Climate Change Policies, Energy Security and Carbon Dependency Trade-offs for the European Union in the Longer Term," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 221-242, September.
    4. Simon J.Evenett & Mia Mikic & Ravi Ratnayake (ed.), 2011. "Trade-led growth: A sound strategy for Asia," ARTNeT Books and Research Reports, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), number brr10.
    5. Ianchovichina, Elena, 2004. "Trade policy analysis in the presence of duty drawbacks," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 353-371, April.
    6. Pierre Boulanger & Hasan Dudu & Emanuele Ferrari & George Philippidis, 2016. "Russian Roulette at the Trade Table: A Specific Factors CGE Analysis of an Agri-food Import Ban," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 272-291, June.
    7. Jiang, Tingsong, 2003. "The Impact of China's WTO Accession on its Regional Economies," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 11.
    8. Henseler, Martin & Piot-Lepetit, Isabelle & Ferrari, Emanuele & Mellado, Aida Gonzalez & Banse, Martin & Grethe, Harald & Parisi, Claudia & Hélaine, Sophie, 2013. "On the asynchronous approvals of GM crops: Potential market impacts of a trade disruption of EU soy imports," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 166-176.
    9. Adams, Philip D., 2008. "Insurance against Catastrophic Climate Change: How Much Will an Emissions Trading Scheme Cost Australia?," Conference papers 331770, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    10. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    11. Pavel Ciaian & d'Artis Kancs & Jan Pokrivcak, 2008. "Comparative Advantages, Transaction Costs and Factor Content of Agricultural Trade: Empirical Evidence from the CEE," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2008_03, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    12. Kym Anderson & Anna Strutt, 2012. "Agriculture and Food Security in Asia by 2030," Macroeconomics Working Papers 23309, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    13. Dhoubhadel, Sunil P. & Taheripour, Farzad & Stockton, Mathew C., 2016. "Livestock Demand, Global Land Use, and Induced Greenhouse Gas Emissions," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235271, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Federico Perali & Stefania Lovo, 2009. "Counterfactual analysis using a regional dynamic general equilibrium model with historical calibration," Working Papers 58/2009, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    15. Mai, Yinhua, 2008. "Removing border protection on wheat and rice: effects on rural income and food self-sufficiency in China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-19.
    16. Lucian Cernat & Sam Laird & Alessandro Turrini, 2003. "How Important are Market Access Issues for Developing Countries in the Doha Agenda?," International Trade 0302004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Palatnik, Ruslana R. & Kan, Iddo & Rapaport-Rom, Mickey & Ghermandi, Andrea & Eboli, Fabio & Shechter, Mordechai, 2011. "Land transformation analysis and application," Conference papers 332155, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    18. Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2004. "Cost-effective environmental policy: implications of induced technological change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 1099-1121, November.
    19. Carolyn Fischer & Richard D. Morgenstern, 2006. "Carbon Abatement Costs: Why the Wide Range of Estimates?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 73-86.
    20. Hareau, Guy Gaston & Norton, George W. & Mills, Bradford F. & Peterson, Everett B., 2004. "Potential Benefits Of Transgenic Rice In Asia: A General Equilibrium Approach," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20334, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    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:ags:pugtwp:331133. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    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.