IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gewi12/137160.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Do Agricultural Trade Policies Affect The Regional Environment? An Integrated Analysis For The Austrian Marchfeld Region

Author

Listed:
  • Kirchner, Mathias
  • Schmid, Erwin

Abstract

It is still difficult to derive general findings and conclusions from either economic theory or empirical studies on the relationship between trade and environment. Consequently, we aim to analyse environmental effects of agricultural trade policies in the Austrian Marchfeld region by applying an integrated modelling framework that accounts for heterogeneity in agricultural production and emission. Monte-Carlo simulations have been performed in order to assess the uncertainty of model parameters and policy impacts. The model results indicate that changes in trade policies have statistically significant but small effects on the environment in Marchfeld. Policy makers should rather concentrate on identifying efficient domestic environmental policies, which are in accordance with WTO trade rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirchner, Mathias & Schmid, Erwin, 2012. "How Do Agricultural Trade Policies Affect The Regional Environment? An Integrated Analysis For The Austrian Marchfeld Region," 52nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 26-28, 2012 137160, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi12:137160
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.137160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/137160/files/Kirchner_Schmid_GEWISOLA_2012.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.137160?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. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1994. "North-South Trade and the Global Environment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 851-874, September.
    2. Arild Vatn, 2002. "Multifunctional agriculture: some consequences for international trade regimes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(3), pages 309-327, July.
    3. Moon, Wanki, 2011. "Is agriculture compatible with free trade?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 13-24.
    4. Joseph Cooper (ed.), 2005. "Global Agricultural Policy Reform and Trade," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3475.
    5. Ingco,Merlinda D. & Winters,L. Alan (ed.), 2004. "Agriculture and the New Trade Agenda," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521826853.
    6. Aggarwal, Rimjhim M., 2006. "Globalization, local ecosystems, and the rural poor," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1405-1418, August.
    7. Barbier, Edward B., 2000. "Links between economic liberalization and rural resource degradation in the developing regions," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 299-310, September.
    8. Henseler, Martin & Wirsig, Alexander & Herrmann, Sylvia & Krimly, Tatjana & Dabbert, Stephan, 2009. "Modeling the impact of global change on regional agricultural land use through an activity-based non-linear programming approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 100(1-3), pages 31-42, April.
    9. Norgaard, Richard B. & Jin, Ling, 2008. "Trade and the governance of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 638-652, July.
    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. Kirchner, M. & Schmid, E., 2013. "How do agricultural trade policies affect the regional environment? An integrated analysis fort he Austrian Marchfeld region," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 48, March.
    2. Demeke, Bayou, 2004. "Is Globalization Bad For The Environment? International Trade And Land Degradation In Developing Countries:The Case Of Small Open Economy," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20376, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Bård Harstad, 2020. "Trade and Trees: How Trade Agreements Can Motivate Conservation Instead of Depletion," CESifo Working Paper Series 8569, CESifo.
    4. Moon, Wanki, 2012. "Conceptualizing Multifunctional Agriculture from a Global Perspective," 2012 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2012, Birmingham, Alabama 119751, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Seyed Komail Tayebi & Sanaz Younespour, 2012. "The Effect of Trade Openness on Environmental Quality: Evidence from Iran's Trade Relations with the Selected Countries of the Different Blocks," Iranian Economic Review (IER), Faculty of Economics,University of Tehran.Tehran,Iran, vol. 17(2), pages 19-40, spring.
    6. Jiayuan Zhou & Yunxia Li & Bo Li, 2022. "Restructure or Misallocation? Enterprises’ Carbon Emission Intensity under Market Integration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-18, December.
    7. Nicole A. MATHYS & Jaime DE MELO, 2010. "Trade and Climate Change: The Challenges Ahead," Working Papers P14, FERDI.
    8. Yiping Sun & Xiangyi Li & Tengyuan Zhang & Jiawei Fu, 2022. "Does Trade Policy Uncertainty Exacerbate Environmental Pollution?—Evidence from Chinese Cities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-21, February.
    9. Copeland, Brian R., 2005. "Policy Endogeneity and the Effects of Trade on the Environment," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 1-15, April.
    10. Yang Feng & Yang Wang, 2021. "A Literature Review on the Location Determinants of FDI," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(4), pages 126-126, April.
    11. Erhardt, Tobias & Weder, Rolf, 2020. "Shark hunting: On the vulnerability of resources with heterogeneous species," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    12. Reimer, Jeffrey J., 2012. "On the economics of virtual water trade," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 135-139.
    13. 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.
    14. Ling-Yun He & Liang Wang, 2019. "Import Liberalization of Intermediates and Environment: Empirical Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, May.
    15. Costantini, Valeria & Monni, Salvatore, 2008. "Environment, human development and economic growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 867-880, February.
    16. Parisa Aghajanzadeh-Darzi & Pierre-Alain Jayet & Athanasios Petsakos, 2017. "Improvement of a Bio-Economic Mathematical Programming Model in the Case of On-Farm Source Inputs and Outputs," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 15(3), pages 489-508, September.
    17. Imad Moosa, 2019. "The Environmental Effects of FDI: Evidence from MENA Countries," Working Papers 1321, Economic Research Forum, revised 21 Aug 2019.
    18. Chen, Hong & Gangopadhyay, Partha & Singh, Baljeet & Chen, Kairan, 2023. "What motivates Chinese multinational firms to invest in Asia? Poor institutions versus rich infrastructures of a host country," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    19. Margolis, Michael & Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "Unprotected Resources and Voracious World Markets," Discussion Papers 10635, Resources for the Future.
    20. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2017_020 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. David R. Harvey, 2003. "Agri‐environmental Relationships and Multi‐functionality: Further Considerations," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 705-725, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:gewi12:137160. 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/gewisea.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.