IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/izm/prcdng/200610.html

The Impact of HPAI of the H5N1 Strain on Economies of Affected Countries

In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human and Economic Resources

Author

Listed:
  • Ceyhun Elci

    (London South Bank University)

Abstract

The epidemic of the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) of the H5N1 strain is causing major economic problems to affected countries, mostly in South-East Asia. The poultry industry is the most devastated, with major losses. This paper assesses the impact and cost of an epidemic of this nature on affected economies. The paper evaluates the economic impact from the poultry industry to the governments and even further to the international level, as the epidemic has no consideration of borders. With the world at the crossroads of a global pandemic, the economic impact will also be considerable at the international level. With the use of forecasting models the affects of the epidemic will be evaluated. The impact to affected countries economies are not just national based, for those with the endemic H5N1 strain are socially burdened with sustaining or even intensifying resource-intensive activities and as a consequence are left with shouldering economic losses in order to safeguard international public health. This at a major level will require the cooperation of the international field, with increased global integration the financial responsibility will be left to the international countries, to make sure all is coherent. The paper in particular assesses the economic impact of the poultry industry for the affected countries. Within these countries the poultry industry is seen as a major sector and the consequence of this pandemic has been the death of poultry from the disease itself and the culling of poultry to stem its spread. Both these factor are leading to significant costs to the poultry industry and to the Governments of the affected countries in containing the epidemic. The increase in costs can be seen in terms of equipment, materials, transport and personnel, that are required to keep a control on the spread. The impact will be qualified by the assessment of GDP and modelling the losses of trade and Government expenditure in controlling the spread of the disease and subsidiaries that the government would have provided to farmers of diseased Livestock for compensation. The results of the impact will have a major impact on the development of the affected regions. The loss of a major source of income from the trade of poultry will have serious consequences on the balance of payments and Government Debt. The cooperation of the affected countries through information will help and lower the overall impact to each country. However the total impact will depend on the transfer of information between affected economies, and the period of time the epidemic will last and if H5N1 begins to transfer to humans.

Suggested Citation

  • Ceyhun Elci, 2006. "The Impact of HPAI of the H5N1 Strain on Economies of Affected Countries," Papers of the Annual IUE-SUNY Cortland Conference in Economics, in: Oguz Esen & Ayla Ogus (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Human and Economic Resources, pages 104-117, Izmir University of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:izm:prcdng:200610
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eco.ieu.edu.tr/wp-content/proceedings/2006/0610.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antle, John M., 1999. "Benefits and costs of food safety regulation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 605-623, December.
    2. Roberts, Donna & Josling, Timothy E. & Orden, David, 1999. "A Framework for Analyzing Technical Trade Barriers in Agricultural Markets," Technical Bulletins 33560, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Barrett, Christopher B. & Yang, Yi-Nung, 2001. "Rational incompatibility with international product standards," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 171-191, June.
    4. Beghin, John C. & Bureau, Jean-Christophe, 2001. "Quantification of Sanitary, Phytosanitary, and Technical Barriers to Trade for Trade Policy Analysis," Hebrew University of Jerusalem Archive 18620, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
    5. World Bank, 2005. "East Asia Update, November 2005 : Countering Global Shocks," World Bank Publications - Reports 12850, The World Bank Group.
    6. Fischer, Ronald & Serra, Pablo, 2000. "Standards and protection," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 377-400, December.
    7. Philip L. Paarlberg & John G. Lee, 1998. "Import Restrictions in the Presence of a Health Risk: An Illustration Using FMD," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 175-183.
    8. Neil M. Ferguson & Derek A.T. Cummings & Simon Cauchemez & Christophe Fraser & Steven Riley & Aronrag Meeyai & Sopon Iamsirithaworn & Donald S. Burke, 2005. "Strategies for containing an emerging influenza pandemic in Southeast Asia," Nature, Nature, vol. 437(7056), pages 209-214, September.
    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. John C. Beghin & Jean-Christophe Bureau, 2001. "Quantification of Sanitary, Phytosanitary, and Technical Barriers to Trade for Trade Policy Analysis," Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications (archive only) 01-wp291, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    2. Olson, Lars J. & Roy, Santanu, 2010. "Dynamic sanitary and phytosanitary trade policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 21-30, July.
    3. DeMaria Federica & Drogue Sophie & Lubello Pasquale, 2021. "The impact of pest risk management measures on trade: the case of apples from France and Chile," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Frank van Tongeren & John Beghin & Stéphane Marette, 2009. "A Cost-Benefit Framework for the Assessment of Non-Tariff Measures in Agro-Food Trade," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 21, OECD Publishing.
    5. Olson, Lars J., 2006. "The Economics of Terrestrial Invasive Species: A Review of the Literature," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 178-194, April.
    6. John C. Beghin & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen, 2017. "Nontariff Measures and Standards in Trade and Global Value Chains," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 2, pages 13-38 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Jaffee, Steven & Henson, Spencer, 2004. "Standards and agro-food exports from developing countries: rebalancing the debate," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3348, The World Bank.
    8. Cretegny, Laurent, 2006. "Liberalizing Services in Switzerland and with the European Union," Conference papers 331543, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. Gordhan K. Saini, 2009. "Non-Tariff Measures and Indian Textiles and Clothing Exports," Trade Working Papers 22407, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    10. Jacob Wood & Jie Wu & Yilin Li & Jungsuk Kim, 2017. "TBT and SPS impacts on Korean exports to China: empirical analysis using the PPML method," Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, The Crawford School, The Australian National University, vol. 31(2), pages 96-114, November.
    11. 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(01), pages 1-17, April.
    12. World Bank, 2015. "Kazakhstan Trade Report," World Bank Publications - Reports 22046, The World Bank Group.
    13. Marette, Stephan & Beghin, John C., 2007. "Are Standards Always Protectionist?," Hebrew University of Jerusalem Archive 10007, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
    14. Deodhar, Satish Y. & Rastogi, Siddhartha K., 2008. "Indo-US Trade in Wheat and Mango: A Game-Theoretic Approach to SPS Standards," IIMA Working Papers WP2008-03-04, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    15. Gordhan K. Saini, 2009. "Non-tariff measures and Indian textiles and clothing exports," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2009-002, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    16. John Christopher Beghin, 2017. "Nontariff Barriers," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 1, pages 3-11, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Katia Berti & Rod Falvey, 2018. "Does trade weaken product standards?," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 852-868, September.
    18. Nardella, Michele & Boccaletti, Stefano, 2003. "The Impact Of Technical Barriers On Us-Eu Agro-Food Trade," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22012, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Levkovych, Inna, 2011. "Der ukrainische Außenhandel mit Produkten der Agrar- und Ernährungswirtschaft: Eine quantitative Analyse aus Sicht traditioneller und neuer Außenhandelstheorien," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 59, number 109520.
    20. Chevassus-Lozza, Emmanuelle & Latouche, Karine & Majkovic, Darja & Unguru, Manuela, 2008. "The importance of EU-15 borders for CEECs agri-food exports: The role of tariffs and non-tariff measures in the pre-accession period," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 595-606, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    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:izm:prcdng:200610. 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: Ayla Ogus Binatli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deieutr.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.