IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Examination of New Zealand's Agricultural Sector in Response to Economic Growth and Changing Trade Relations with China


  • Wallace, Michael
  • Shakur, Shamim


China’s growth performance over the last three decades has stood at a phenomenal nine percent per annum and shows little sign of abating despite challenging market conditions in recent times. With ever increasing demand and limited land availability this is set to have an increasing impact on New Zealand which has a comparative advantage in land-intensive agricultural products. Already this is observable in recent trade statistics. Using GTAP (global trade analysis project), a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, this research estimates the future effects of Chinese growth to New Zealand’s agricultural sectors and its economy in general. Almost all primary industries in New Zealand can expect to benefit from China’s growth, most notably wool and forestry. Modest gains in gross domestic product and economic welfare also benefit the country on the whole. Chinese growth also complements the well documented gains of the recently signed free trade agreement between the two nations.

Suggested Citation

  • Wallace, Michael & Shakur, Shamim, 2011. "Examination of New Zealand's Agricultural Sector in Response to Economic Growth and Changing Trade Relations with China," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115416, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:nzar11:115416

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. R.K. Blamey & J.W. Bennett & J.J. Louviere & M.D. Morrison & J.C. Rolfe, 2002. "Attribute Causality in Environmental Choice Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(2), pages 167-186, October.
    2. John Whitehead & Daniel Phaneuf & Christopher Dumas & Jim Herstine & Jeffery Hill & Bob Buerger, 2010. "Convergent Validity of Revealed and Stated Recreation Behavior with Quality Change: A Comparison of Multiple and Single Site Demands," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 91-112, January.
    3. Hausman, Jerry A. & Leonard, Gregory K. & McFadden, Daniel, 1995. "A utility-consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model Assessing recreational use losses due to natural resource damage," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 1-30, January.
    4. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    5. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    6. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    7. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    8. Vermeulen, Bart & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2010. "Obtaining more information from conjoint experiments by best-worst choices," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 1426-1433, June.
    9. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2005. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Agricultural and Food Policy; International Relations/Trade; Production Economics;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:nzar11:115416. 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: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.