Refuting two claims about virtual water trade
Using the Heckscher-Ohlin trade model, I refute two prominent but incorrect claims on virtual water trade. These claims are that virtual water trade (i) levels uneven water distribution, and (ii) reduces the potential for water conflict. Both claims are based on an incorrect understanding of comparative advantage in the production of water-intensive goods. The results show that both claims only hold under certain conditions, but do not necessarily follow from the Heckscher-Ohlin trade model.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Wichelns, Dennis, 2004. "The policy relevance of virtual water can be enhanced by considering comparative advantages," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 49-63, April.
- Aldaya, M.M. & Allan, J.A. & Hoekstra, A.Y., 2010. "Strategic importance of green water in international crop trade," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 887-894, February.
- M. Kumar & O. Singh, 2005. "Virtual Water in Global Food and Water Policy Making: Is There a Need for Rethinking?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 19(6), pages 759-789, December.
- Novo, P. & Garrido, A. & Varela-Ortega, C., 2009. "Are virtual water "flows" in Spanish grain trade consistent with relative water scarcity?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1454-1464, March.
- Michelle R. Garfinkel & Stergios Skaperdas & Constantinos Syropoulos, 2009.
"International Trade and Transnational Insecurity: How Comparative Advantage and Power are Jointly Determined,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
2680, CESifo Group Munich.
- 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.
- Maria Berrittella & Katrin Rehdanz & Arjen Y. Hoekstra & Roberto Roson & Richard S.J. Tol, 2006. "The Economic Impact Of Restricted Water Supply: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis," Working Papers FNU-93, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Jul 2006.
- Ansink, Erik & Weikard, Hans-Peter, 2009. "Contested water rights," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 247-260, June.
- John Hoehn & Kwami Adanu, 2008. "Do growth, investment, and trade encourage water use or water conservation?," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 127-146, December.
- Yang, Hong & Zehnder, Alexander J. B., 2002. "Water Scarcity and Food Import: A Case Study for Southern Mediterranean Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(8), pages 1413-1430, August.
- Qadir, M. & Boers, Th. M. & Schubert, S. & Ghafoor, A. & Murtaza, G., 2003. "Agricultural water management in water-starved countries: challenges and opportunities," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 165-185, October.
- Mark Zeitoun & Naho Mirumachi, 2008. "Transboundary water interaction I: reconsidering conflict and cooperation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 297-316, December. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)