IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/10182.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exotic Pests and Trade: When Is Pest-Free Status Certification Worthwhile?

Author

Listed:
  • Lichtenberg, Erik
  • Lynch, Lori

Abstract

Pest-free status certification is desirable if the demand-side impacts (increased export revenue) and supply-side impacts (lower pest damage and decreased ongoing control costs) exceed the compliance monitoring and eradication costs. Thus, eradication may be optimal without certification. Certification is more likely for regions facing costly treatment requirements (bans) or possessing geographic traits that lower monitoring costs and infestation probabilities than for those exporting higher-valued products. Certification benefits producers but hurts consumers. Thus, political feasibility may be greater if domestic consumption is a small share of the market and if the additional tax burden of certification programs is light.

Suggested Citation

  • Lichtenberg, Erik & Lynch, Lori, 2006. "Exotic Pests and Trade: When Is Pest-Free Status Certification Worthwhile?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(1), April.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:10182
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/10182
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cheryl Brown & Lori Lynch & David Zilberman, 2002. "The Economics of Controlling Insect-Transmitted Plant Diseases," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, pages 279-291.
    2. Dumas, Christopher F. & Goodhue, Rachael E., 1999. "The Cotton Acreage Effects Of Boll Weevil Eradication: A County-Level Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(03), December.
    3. Roberts, Donna, 1998. "Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Trade Regulations," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 377-405, September.
    4. Tribble, Camille M. & Mcintosh, Christopher S. & Wetzstein, Michael E., 1999. "Georgia Cotton Acreage Response to the Boll Weevil Eradication Program," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, pages 499-506.
    5. Taylor, C. Robert & Carlson, Gerald A. & Cooke, Fred T. Jr. & Reichelderfer, Katherine H. & Starbird, Irving. R., 1983. "Aggregate Economic Effects of Alternative Boll Weevil Management Strategies," Agricultural Economics Research, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, issue 2.
    6. Dumas, Christopher F. & Goodhue, Rachael E., 1999. "The Cotton Acreage Effects of Boll Weevil Eradication: A County-Level Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(03), pages 475-497, December.
    7. McAusland, Carol & Costello, Christopher, 2004. "Avoiding invasives: trade-related policies for controlling unintentional exotic species introductions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 954-977, September.
    8. Lars J. Olson & Santanu Roy, 2002. "The Economics of Controlling a Stochastic Biological Invasion," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1311-1316.
    9. Mark Eiswerth & Wayne Johnson, 2002. "Managing Nonindigenous Invasive Species: Insights from Dynamic Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(3), pages 319-342, November.
    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. Florec, Veronique & Sadler, Rohan J. & White, Ben & Dominiak, Bernie C., 2013. "Choosing the battles: The economics of area wide pest management for Queensland fruit fly," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 203-213.

    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:arerjl:10182. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nareaea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.