IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v51y2015icp190-195.html

An economic approach to understanding the international transfer of bycatch from unilateral bycatch reduction policies

Author

Listed:
  • Mukherjee, Zinnia

Abstract

This paper contributes to an interdisciplinary discussion on the role of unilaterally imposed bycatch reduction policies vis-à-vis multilateral bycatch reduction agreements in an open economy. Through international trade, unilaterally imposed bycatch reduction policies can lead to a transfer of bycatch related environmental damage to foreign countries. The magnitude of this transfer or spillover effect depends on many economic factors. The paper includes an analytical discussion of those supply and demand side factors, which can be used to explain the differences in empirical findings of the transfer effect in various contexts. From a policy perspective, the discussion serves to define the extent of government intervention needed to mitigate the spillover effect in any given context. It also helps to identify the scope of regional multilateral bycatch reduction agreements as a way of coordinating efforts among countries that participate in bycatch related fish trade.

Suggested Citation

  • Mukherjee, Zinnia, 2015. "An economic approach to understanding the international transfer of bycatch from unilateral bycatch reduction policies," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 190-195.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:51:y:2015:i:c:p:190-195
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X14001985
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.024?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey R. Blend & Eileen O. van Ravenswaay, 1999. "Measuring Consumer Demand for Ecolabeled Apples," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1072-1077.
    2. Stewart, Taimoon, 1998. "The United States embargo on shrimp imports: legal and economic considerations," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 197-219, May.
    3. Bartram, Paul K. & John Kaneko, J. & Kucey-Nakamura, Katrina, 2010. "Sea turtle bycatch to fish catch ratios for differentiating Hawaii longline-caught seafood products," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 145-149, January.
    4. Loureiro, Maria L. & Lotade, Justus, 2005. "Do fair trade and eco-labels in coffee wake up the consumer conscience?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 129-138, April.
    5. Camilo Sarmiento, 2006. "Transfer function estimation of trade leakages generated by court rulings in the Hawai'i longline fishery," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 183-190.
    6. David M. McEvoy & Sylvia Brandt & Sven Anders, 2009. "The Effects of ITQ Management on Fishermen’s Welfare When the Processing Sector Is Imperfectly Competitive," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 470-484.
    7. Carlton, Dennis W, 1978. "Market Behavior with Demand Uncertainty and Price Inflexibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(4), pages 571-587, September.
    8. Teisl, Mario F. & Roe, Brian & Hicks, Robert L., 2002. "Can Eco-Labels Tune a Market? Evidence from Dolphin-Safe Labeling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 339-359, May.
    9. Ragnar Arnason, 2012. "Property Rights in Fisheries: How Much Can Individual Transferable Quotas Accomplish?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(2), pages 217-236, July.
    10. Bremner, Graeme & Johnstone, Peter & Bateson, Tracy & Clarke, Philip, 2009. "Unreported bycatch in the New Zealand West Coast South Island hoki fishery," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 504-512, May.
    11. Rausser, Gordon & Hamilton, Stephen & Kovach, Marty & Stifter, Ryan, 2009. "Unintended consequences: The spillover effects of common property regulations," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 24-39, January.
    12. Kathryn Graddy, 1995. "Testing for Imperfect Competition at the Fulton Fish Market," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 75-92, Spring.
    13. Cathy R. Wessells & Robert J. Johnston & Holger Donath, 1999. "Assessing Consumer Preferences for Ecolabeled Seafood: The Influence of Species, Certifier, and Household Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1084-1089.
    14. Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 1985. "Export subsidies and international market share rivalry," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1-2), pages 83-100, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Brouhle, Keith & Khanna, Madhu, 2012. "Determinants of participation versus consumption in the Nordic Swan eco-labeled market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 142-151.
    2. Fredrik Carlsson & Jorge García & Åsa Löfgren, 2010. "Conformity and the Demand for Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 407-421, November.
    3. Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Zhifeng & Swisher, Marilyn & House, Lisa & Zhao, Xin, 2018. "Eco-labeling in the Fresh Produce Market: Not All Environmentally Friendly Labels Are Equally Valued," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 201-210.
    4. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2010. "Ecolabeling, consumers' preferences and taxation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2202-2212, September.
    5. Brécard, Dorothée, 2014. "Consumer confusion over the profusion of eco-labels: Lessons from a double differentiation model," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 64-84.
    6. Disdier, Anne-Célia & Marette, Stéphan, 2012. "How do consumers in developed countries value the environment and workers’ social rights in developing countries?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-11.
    7. Hindsley, Paul & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2020. "Consumer Demand for Ethical Products and the Role of Cultural Worldviews: The Case of Direct-Trade Coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    8. Kotchen, Matthew J., 2005. "Impure public goods and the comparative statics of environmentally friendly consumption," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 281-300, March.
    9. Hallstein, Eric & Villas-Boas, Sofia Berto, "undated". "Are Consumers Color Blind?: an empirical investigation of a traffic light advisory for sustainable seafood," CUDARE Working Papers 120535, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    10. Bennear, Lori S. & Olmstead, Sheila M., 2008. "The impacts of the "right to know": Information disclosure and the violation of drinking water standards," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 117-130, September.
    11. Etilé, Fabrice & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2013. "Corporate social responsibility and the economics of consumer social responsibility," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 94(2).
    12. Vera Herédia-Colaço & Rita Coelho do Vale & Sofia B. Villas-Boas, 2019. "Does Fair Trade Breed Contempt? A Cross-Country Examination on the Moderating Role of Brand Familiarity and Consumer Expertise on Product Evaluation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 737-758, May.
    13. Basak Bayramoglu & Brian Copeland & Jean-François Jacques, 2018. "Trade and fisheries subsidies [Le commerce international et les subventions à la pêche]," Post-Print hal-02624649, HAL.
    14. Salladarré Frédéric & Guillotreau Patrice & Perraudeau Yves & Monfort Marie-Christine, 2010. "The Demand for Seafood Eco-Labels in France," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-26, December.
    15. Li, Tongzhe & McCluskey, Jill J. & Messer, Kent D., 2018. "Ignorance Is Bliss? Experimental Evidence on Wine Produced from Grapes Irrigated with Recycled Water," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 100-110.
    16. Hye Jung Jung & HaeJung Kim & Kyung Wha Oh, 2016. "Green Leather for Ethical Consumers in China and Korea: Facilitating Ethical Consumption with Value–Belief–Attitude Logic," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 483-502, May.
    17. Gunnar Gutsche & Bernhard Zwergel, 2016. "Information barriers and SRI market participation – Can sustainability and transparency labels help?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201624, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    18. Wendy J. Umberger & Dawn D. Thilmany McFadden & Amanda R. Smith, 2009. "Does altruism play a role in determining U.S. consumer preferences and willingness to pay for natural and regionally produced beef?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 268-285.
    19. Gracia, Azucena & de Magistris, Tiziana, 2008. "The demand for organic foods in the South of Italy: A discrete choice model," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 386-396, October.
    20. Todd M. Schmit & Bradley J. Rickard & John Taber, 2013. "Consumer Valuation of Environmentally Friendly Production Practices in Wines, considering Asymmetric Information and Sensory Effects," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 483-504, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:marpol:v:51:y:2015:i:c:p:190-195. 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/marpol .

    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.