IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/midasp/36946.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Evaluation of SPS Regulations: Where Can Progress be Made?

Author

Listed:
  • Romano, Eduardo
  • Thornsbury, Suzanne

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to report on the current state of economic evaluations for sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) regulations affecting food and agricultural trade. The paper reviews current theoretical and econometric advances and limitations in modeling SPS regulations, particularly in dealing with biological and environmental uncertainty. By systematizing limitations of current approaches for evaluation, and comparing them with approaches used in the public health arena, the paper identifies problematic areas, and suggests steps for immediate analytical and policy progress.

Suggested Citation

  • Romano, Eduardo & Thornsbury, Suzanne, 2007. "Economic Evaluation of SPS Regulations: Where Can Progress be Made?," Staff Papers 36946, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:midasp:36946
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/36946
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Knowler, Duncan & Barbier, Edward, 2005. "Importing exotic plants and the risk of invasion: are market-based instruments adequate?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 341-354, February.
    2. Roberts, Donna & Unnevehr, Laurian J. & Caswell, Julie A. & Sheldon, Ian M. & Wilson, John S. & Otsuki, Tsunehiro & Orden, David, 2001. "The Role Of Product Attributes In The Agricultural Negotiations," Commissioned Papers 14620, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    3. Evans, Edward A. & Spreen, Thomas H. & Knapp, J.L., 2002. "Economic Issues of Invasive Pests and Diseases and Food Safety," Monographs, University of Florida, International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center, number 15696.
    4. Cheryl Brown & Lori Lynch & David Zilberman, 2002. "The Economics of Controlling Insect-Transmitted Plant Diseases," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(2), pages 279-291.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Ainslie, George, 1991. "Derivation of "Rational" Economic Behavior from Hyperbolic Discount Curves," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 334-340, May.
    8. Cropper, Maureen & Laibson, David, 1998. "The implications of hyperbolic discounting for project evaluation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1943, The World Bank.
    9. Peterson, Everett B. & Evangelou, Phylo & Orden, David & Bakshi, Nishita, 2004. "An Economic Assessment Of Removing The Partial U.S. Import Ban On Fresh Mexican Hass Avocados," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19938, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2004. "Uncertain discount rates in climate policy analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 519-529, March.
    11. Pimentel, David & Zuniga, Rodolfo & Morrison, Doug, 2005. "Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 273-288, February.
    12. Born, Wanda & Rauschmayer, Felix & Brauer, Ingo, 2005. "Economic evaluation of biological invasions--a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 321-336, November.
    13. Timothy E. Josling & Donna Roberts & David Orden, 2004. "Food Regulation and Trade: Toward a Safe and Open Global System," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 347.
    14. Weitzman Martin L., 1994. "On the Environmental Discount Rate," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 200-209, March.
    15. Holden, Stein & Shiferaw, Bekele & Pender, John, 2005. "Policy analysis for sustainable land management and food security in Ethiopia: a bioeconomic model with market imperfections," Research reports 140, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    16. Lind, Robert C, 1995. "Intergenerational equity, discounting, and the role of cost-benefit analysis in evaluating global climate policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4-5), pages 379-389.
    17. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    18. Maskus, Keith E. & Wilson, John S. & Tsunehiro Otsuki, 2000. "Quantifying the impact of technical barriers to trade : a framework for analysis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2512, The World Bank.
    19. Calvin, Linda & Krissoff, Barry, 1998. "Technical Barriers To Trade: A Case Study Of Phytosanitary Barriers And U.S. - Japanese Apple Trade," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(02), December.
    20. Weitzman, Martin L., 1998. "Why the Far-Distant Future Should Be Discounted at Its Lowest Possible Rate," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 201-208, November.
    21. Romano, Eduardo & Orden, David, 1995. "The Political Economy of U.S. Import Restrictions on Nursery Stock and Ornamental Plants in Growing Media," 1995: Understanding Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade Conference, December 1995, Tucson, Arizona 50707, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ronen, Eyal & Dawar, Kamala, 2016. "How Necessary? A Comparison of Legal and Economic Assessments GATT Dispute Settlements under: Article XX(b), TBT 2.2 and SPS 5.6," MPRA Paper 83834, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    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:midasp:36946. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/damsuus.html .

    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.