IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeeman/v65y2013i3p438-451.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protectionism versus risk in screening for invasive species

Author

Listed:
  • Lawley, Chad

Abstract

I examine the extent to which enforcement of a biosecurity import restriction – US border inspections for foreign pests and diseases – is used as a protectionist trade barrier. The parameters of a structural model of border inspection are estimated using a detailed dataset documenting the outcome of US agricultural border inspections. I find that inspections are conducted in a manner that places an implied welfare weight on domestic producers (relative to consumers) ranging from 1 to 1.63. I also find evidence that the inspection agency takes terms of trade into account when inspecting agricultural imports. These results suggest that border inspections are used as a protectionist non-tariff barrier.

Suggested Citation

  • Lawley, Chad, 2013. "Protectionism versus risk in screening for invasive species," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 438-451.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeeman:v:65:y:2013:i:3:p:438-451
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2012.11.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069612001155
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Kishore Gawande & Usree Bandyopadhyay, 2000. "Is Protection for Sale? Evidence on the Grossman-Helpman Theory of Endogenous Protection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 139-152, February.
    2. Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2004. "Trade, Growth, and the Environment," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(1), pages 7-71, March.
    3. Michael Margolis & Jason Shogren, 2012. "Disguised Protectionism, Global Trade Rules and Alien Invasive Species," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 105-118, January.
    4. Hansen, Lars Peter, 1982. "Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 1029-1054, July.
    5. Gordon H. Hanson & Antonio Spilimbergo, 2001. "Political economy, sectoral shocks, and border enforcement," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(3), pages 612-638, August.
    6. Chengyan Yue & John Beghin & Helen H. Jensen, 2017. "Tariff Equivalent Of Technical Barriers To Trade With Imperfect Substitution And Trade Costs," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 9, pages 151-164 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Limão, Nuno & Tovar, Patricia, 2011. "Policy choice: Theory and evidence from commitment via international trade agreements," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 186-205.
    8. Feenstra, Robert C, 1994. "New Product Varieties and the Measurement of International Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 157-177, March.
    9. Newey, Whitney & West, Kenneth, 2014. "A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 33(1), pages 125-132.
    10. Everett B. Peterson & David Orden, 2008. "Avocado Pests and Avocado Trade," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 321-335.
    11. Martin S. Eichenbaum & Lars Peter Hansen & Kenneth J. Singleton, 1988. "A Time Series Analysis of Representative Agent Models of Consumption and Leisure Choice Under Uncertainty," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 103(1), pages 51-78.
    12. Liu, Lan & Yue, Chengyan, 2009. "Non-tariff Barriers to Trade Caused by SPS Measures and Customs Procedures with Product Quality Changes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(1), April.
    13. Gordon H. Hanson, 2006. "Illegal Migration from Mexico to the United States," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(4), pages 869-924, December.
    14. Giovanni Maggi & Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, 1999. "Protection for Sale: An Empirical Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1135-1155, December.
    15. Roberto Rigobon, 2003. "Identification Through Heteroskedasticity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(4), pages 777-792, November.
    16. Eichenbaum, Martin, 1989. "Some Empirical Evidence on the Production Level and Production Cost Smoothing Models of Inventory Investment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 853-864, September.
    17. David Orden, 1996. "Agricultural Interest Groups and the North American Free Trade Agreement," NBER Chapters,in: The Political Economy of American Trade Policy, pages 335-384 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Kathy Baylis & Jeffrey M. Perloff, 2010. "Trade diversion from tomato suspension agreements," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 43(1), pages 127-151, February.
    19. 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.
    20. Almonte-Alvarez, Jaime & Conley, Dennis M., 2003. "U.S. --Mexico Food Systems And The Tomato Trade Dispute," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA), vol. 5(03).
    21. Christian Broda & Nuno Limao & David E. Weinstein, 2008. "Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 2032-2065, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:jeeman:v:65:y:2013:i:3:p:438-451. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622870 .

    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.