Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T11:22:15.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trade Policy and Environmental Quality: The Case of Export Subsidies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Susan Leetmaa ,
Barry Krissoff  and
Monika Hartmann
Susan Leetmaa
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.
Barry Krissoff
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.
Monika Hartmann
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe, Germany
Get access

Abstract

The United States and the European Union both employ export subsidies to stimulate wheat trade and to increase their competitiveness in world markets. The environmental consequences of these policies are being questioned. We stimulate reducing or removing export subsidies for wheat from the United States and the EU using a multicountry partial equilibrium model, and we analyze the impact of export subsidy policy reform on nitrogen fertilizer and other chemical use. Our findings indicate that the U.S. EEP program cannot be blamed for environmental degradation in terms of nitrate leaching, while EU wheat subsidies make only a small contribution to nitrate pollution.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , October 1996 , pp. 232 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armington, P.C. 1969. “A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production.” International Monetary Fund Staff Papers 16: 159–78.Google Scholar
Bailey, K. 1988. “The Impact of the Food Security Act of 1985 on U.S. Wheat Exports: An Economic Analysis.” Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Bailey, K. 1989. Why Did U.S. Wheat Export Expand? Statistical Bulletin No. 564. Washington, D.C.: USDA/ERS.Google Scholar
Ball, V.E. 1989. Estimating Supply Response of Multiproduct Farms. Technical Bulletin No. 1750. Washington, D.C.: USDA/ERS.Google Scholar
Boyle, G.E., and O'Neill, D. 1990. “The Generation of Output Supply and Input Demand Elasticities for a Johansen-Type Model of the Irish Agricultural Sector.” European Review of Agricultural Economists 17: 387–405.Google Scholar
Brooks, H.G., Devadoss, S., and Meyers, W.H. 1990. “The Impact of the U.S. Wheat Export Enhancement Program on the World Wheat Market.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 38: 253–77.Google Scholar
Brouwer, F.M., Godeschalk, F.E., Hellegers, P.J.G.J., and Kelholt, H.J. 1995. Mineral Balances at the Farm Level in the European Union. The Hague, Netherlands: Agricultural Economics Research Institute. September.Google Scholar
Bruning-Fann, C.S., and Kaneene, J.B. 1993. “The Effects of Nitrate, Nitrite and N-nitroso Compounds on Human Health: A Review.” Veterinary and Human Toxicology 35(6): 521–38.Google ScholarPubMed
Chambers, R.G. 1988. Applied Production Analysis: A Dual Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Denbaly, M., and Vroomen, H. 1991. Elasticities of Fertilizer Demands for Corn in the Short and the Long Run: A Cointegrated and Error-Correcting System. Agricultural and Rural Economy Division, Staff Report AGES No. 9137. Washington, D.C.: USDA/ERS.Google Scholar
Eglin, Richard. 1995. “Agriculture and the Environment in the 21st Century: How Is the WTO Addressing Environmental Concerns?” Paper presented at the International Policy Council on Agriculture, Food and Trade, October 17. Paris.Google Scholar
FAO. 1995. Agrostat Database. Rome.Google Scholar
Haley, S.L., Leetmaa, S.E., and Webb, A.J. 1993. Wheat Cleaning and Its Effect on U.S. Wheat Exports. International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium Working Paper No. 93-9. October.Google Scholar
Hertel, T.W. 1994. Applications of Duality and Flexible Functional Forms: The Case of the Multiproduct Firm. Research Bulletin 980. West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University. September.Google Scholar
Hillberg, A.M. 1988. “The United States' Export Enhancement Program for Wheat: A Simulation Model Employing Nash's Bargaining Solution.” Ph.D. diss., Purdue University.Google Scholar
International Wheat Council. 1986-92. World Grain Statistics. London: IWC.Google Scholar
Krissoff, B., Ballenger, N., Dunmore, J., and Gray, D. 1996. “Exploring Linkages among Agriculture, Trade, and the Environment: Issues for the Next Century.” Agricultural Economic Report No. 738, Washington, D.C.: USDA.Google Scholar
Kuch, P., and Reichelderfer, K. 1991. “The Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Support Programs: A United States Perspective.” In Improving Agriculture under the GATT, ed. Becker, T., Gray, R. and Schmitz, A. Kiel: Christian-Albrechts Universitat.Google Scholar
Leuck, D., Haley, S., Liapis, P., and McDonald, B. 1995. The EU Nitrate Directive and CAP Reform: Effects on Agricultural Production, Trade, and Residual Soil Nitrogen. Foreign Agricultural Economics Report No. 255. Washington, D.C.: USDA/ERS.Google Scholar
Maritime Research, Inc. 1992. Shipping Rate Database. Parlin, N.J.Google Scholar
Mirvish, S. 1991. “The Significance for Human Health of Nitrate, Nitrite and Nitroso Compounds.” In Nitrate Contamination, ed. Bogardi, I. and Kuzelka, R. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Morales Suarez-Valera, M., Llopis Gonzalez, A., Tejerizo Perez, M.L., and Ferrandiz Ferragud, J. 1993. “Concentration of Nitrates in Drinking Water and Its Relationship with Bladder Cancer.” Journal of Environmental Pathology and Toxicological Oncology 12: 229–36.Google Scholar
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1992. Economic Accounts for Agriculture 1977–1990. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Ribaudo, Marc, and Shoemaker, Robbin. 1995. “The Effect of Feedgrain Program Participation on Chemical Use.” Agriculture and Resource Economic Review, October: 211–20.Google Scholar
Schmitz, P.M. 1987. “Umweltwirkungen der Gemeinsamen Agrapolitik.” In Landwirtschaft und Umwelt—Fragen und Antworten aus der Sicht der Wirtschafts—und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues, ed. Urff, W.v. Frankfurt: Munster-Hiltrup.Google Scholar
Seitzinger, A.H., and Paarlberg, P.L. 1989. The Export Enhancement Program: How Has It Affected Wheat Exports? Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 575. Washington, D.C.: USDA/ERS.Google Scholar
Sullivan, J., Roningen, V.O., Leetmaa, S.E., and Gray, D. 1992. A 1989 Global Database for the Static World Policy Simulation (SWOPSIM) Modeling Framework. Staff Report AGES 92-15. Washington, D.C.: USDA/ERS.Google Scholar
Taylor, H.H. 1994. Fertilizer Use and Price Statistics, 1960-93. Statistical Bulletin No. 893. Washington, D.C.: USDA/ERS. September.Google Scholar
Tobey, J.A. 1991. “The Effects of Environmental Policy Towards Agriculture on Trade.” Food Policy 16(2): 90–94.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators. Agricultural Handbook No. 705. Washington, D.C.: USDA/ERS.Google Scholar
Walton, G. 1951. “Survey of Literature Relating to Infant Methemoglobinemia Due to Nitrate Contaminated Water.” American Journal of Public Health (41):988–96.Google Scholar
Weisenburger, D.D. 1993. “Potential Health Consequences of Ground-Water Contamination by Nitrates in Nebraska.” Nebraska Medical Journal 78(1): 7–12.Google Scholar
Wu, Y., Ohshima, H., Pignateli, B., Boreham, J., Li, H., Campbell, T.C., Peto, R., and Bartch, H. 1993. “Geographic Association between Urinary Excretion of N-nitroso Compounds and Oesophageal Cancer Mortality in China.” International Journal of Cancer 54(5): 713–19.Google Scholar
Zandjani, F., Hogsaet, B., Andersen, A., and Langard, S. 1994. “Incidence of Cancer among Nitrate Fertilizer Workers.” International Archive of Occupational and Environmental Health 66(3): 189–93.Google Scholar