IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea09/49382.html

A gravity model approach to forecasting tuberculosis transmission in cattle

Author

Listed:
  • Xie, Fang
  • Horan, Richard D.
  • Wolf, Christopher A.

Abstract

Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in cattle has caused significant economic losses to livestock producers and has proven difficult to eradicate. It is suspected that cattle movement across different farms and regions is one of the key factors of bTB transmission in the United States. Prior attempts to model the epidemiology of bTB infection within cattle to predict disease transmission have not adequately captured the behavioral aspects of trade. A better understanding of livestock trade patterns would help in predicting disease transmission and the associated economic effects. In this paper, we develop a gravity model of livestock trade and link it to an epidemiological model of bTB transmission, with the goal being that this information could lead to improved disease surveillance and management. Our findings suggest that feedbacks between jointly determined disease dynamics and trade system matter and should be considered together for efficient disease management.

Suggested Citation

  • Xie, Fang & Horan, Richard D. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "A gravity model approach to forecasting tuberculosis transmission in cattle," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49382, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea09:49382
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.49382
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/49382/files/Xie_Horan_Wolf.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.49382?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 691-751, September.
    2. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2003. "Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 170-192, March.
    3. Patrick Puhani, 2000. "The Heckman Correction for Sample Selection and Its Critique," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 53-68, February.
    4. James Heckman, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    5. Charlotte Emlinger & Florence Jacquet & Emmanuelle Chevassus Lozza, 2008. "Tariffs and other trade costs: assessing obstacles to Mediterranean countries' access to EU-15 fruit and vegetable markets," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(4), pages 409-438, December.
    6. Barry Eichengreen & Douglas A. Irwin, 1998. "The Role of History in Bilateral Trade Flows," NBER Chapters, in: The Regionalization of the World Economy, pages 33-62, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Andrew K. Rose & Eric van Wincoop, 2001. "National Money as a Barrier to International Trade: The Real Case for Currency Union," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 386-390, May.
    8. Jonathan Eaton & Samuel Kortum, 2002. "Technology, Geography, and Trade," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1741-1779, September.
    9. Anderson, James E, 1979. "A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(1), pages 106-116, March.
    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. Cipollina, Maria & Salvatici, Luca, 2007. "EU and developing countries: an analysis of preferential margins on agricultural trade flows," Working Papers 7219, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    2. (ed.), 0. "Research Handbook on Economic Diplomacy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 16053.
    3. Haq, Zahoor Ul & Meilke, Karl D. & Cranfield, John A.L., 2011. "The Gravity Model and the Problem of Zero's in Agrifood Trade," Working Papers 116851, Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network.
    4. Shahriar Kabir & Ruhul Salim, 2016. "Can A Common Currency Induce Intra-Regional Trade? The Southeast Asian Perspective," Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 218-234, November.
    5. Anderson, James E. & Borchert, Ingo & Mattoo, Aaditya & Yotov, Yoto V., 2018. "Dark costs, missing data: Shedding some light on services trade," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 193-214.
    6. Zongo, Amara, 2020. "The Impact of Services Trade Restrictiveness on Food Trade," MPRA Paper 101658, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Tenreyro, Silvana, 2007. "On the trade impact of nominal exchange rate volatility," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 485-508, March.
    8. Ritschl, Albrecht & Wolf, Nikolaus, 2003. "Endogeneity of Currency Areas and Trade Blocs: Evidence from the Inter-war Period," CEPR Discussion Papers 4112, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    9. Yilmazkuday, Hakan, 2009. "How Important is Technology? A Counterfactual Analysis," MPRA Paper 16838, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Martijn Burger & Frank van Oort & Gert-Jan Linders, 2009. "On the Specification of the Gravity Model of Trade: Zeros, Excess Zeros and Zero-inflated Estimation," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 167-190.
    11. Güzin Bayar, 2018. "Estimating export equations: a survey of the literature," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 629-672, March.
    12. Daniel Lederman & Çaglar Özden, 2007. "Geopolitical Interests And Preferential Access To U.S. Markets," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 235-258, July.
    13. Joras Ferwerda & Mark Kattenberg & Han-Hsin Chang & Brigitte Unger & Loek Groot & Jacob A. Bikker, 2013. "Gravity models of trade-based money laundering," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(22), pages 3170-3182, August.
    14. Maria Cipollina & Luca De Benedictis & Luca Salvatici & Claudio Vicarelli, 2016. "Policy Measurement And Multilateral Resistance In Gravity Models," Working Papers LuissLab 16130, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    15. Chevassus-Lozza, Emmanuelle & Majkovic, Darja & Persillet, Vanessa & Unguru, Manuela, 2005. "Technical Barriers to Trade in the European Union : Importance for the New EU Members. An Assessment for Agricultural and Food Products," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24621, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 691-751, September.
    17. Yilmazkuday, Hakan, 2009. "Distribution of Consumption, Production and Trade within the U.S," MPRA Paper 16361, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Sithanonxay SUVANNAPHAKDY & Toshihisa TOYODA & Chris CZERKAWSKI, 2011. "Enhancing Trade Flows in ASEAN Plus Six," Applied Econometrics and International Development, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 11(2).
    19. Yuan Li & John C. Beghin, 2017. "A meta-analysis of estimates of the impact of technical barriers to trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 4, pages 63-77, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Michele Fratianni & Francesco Marchionne, 2012. "Trade Costs and Economic Development," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 88(2), pages 137-163, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea09:49382. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.